Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Class Sizes

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will commission research on the effect of class size on achievement in education. [29107]

The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The hon. Gentleman asks about achievement in education. It is my view that that depends on the quality of teaching.

Mr. Williams: In fact, I asked about class sizes. Why do the Government insist on the nonsense that class sizes do not matter? It goes against common sense. Has the Secretary of State seen the report published a couple of weeks ago by the National Commission on Education, which draws attention to the importance of class size in primary and, particularly, infant schools? Has she seen the research carried out in Tennessee, whereby a comparison of a class of 15 pupils with a class of 25 pupils shows that higher standards are achieved and pupils behave better in smaller classes? Is it not a shameful record of this Government that class sizes have risen from 25—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very bad start. I constantly harass Ministers to give brief replies, so I must ask Back Benchers to put brief questions.

Mr. Williams: May I wind up my question?

Madam Speaker: Order. We do not wind up questions. I think that the Minister has got the point.

Mrs. Shephard: I am, of course, aware of the document from the National Commission on Education. I am also aware of the most recent research from the United States. Even if research from America tells us that class sizes of 13 or 15 are desirable, research from America and from here tells us that interventions that impact on teaching methods rather than on class size offer better results and better value for money. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that class sizes have edged up a little over the past two years and standards have risen a great deal.

Mr. Dunn: May I support my right hon. Friend's view that it is the quality of teaching that matters? Does she remember the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that some teachers can

teach 60 children in a bus shelter and achieve good results while other teachers will have a riot on their hands with one dead chicken?

Mrs. Shephard: As I said, achievement in education depends on the quality of teaching and the quality of teachers. Very large classes can be more difficult to teach, but it is important to remember that Her Majesty's chief inspector has never suggested that current class sizes are depressing standards. I reassure my hon. Friend that I agree with the drift of our right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).

Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question on commissioning research? Is it not a disgrace that we must depend on American research like the Tennessee Star project and the Ypsilanti project on nursery education? Is it not a fact that, in the past 10 years, education research expenditure has been cut from £79 million to £23 million a year? Does that not show callous indifference by the Government towards the educational needs of the country?

Mrs. Shephard: In a word, no. What is a fact is that, although class sizes have edged up a bit over the past two years, so have standards. Standards have gone up a great deal, despite the Opposition's best efforts to vote against every measure to raise standards. There is a lot of research evidence around. We shall have more information from the Office for Standards in Education database. At present, I do not see a case for more long-term research on class sizes as such, but I see every reason for having useful research that can improve standards.

Parental Choice

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has had about the exercise of parental choice of schools on the Isle of Wight. [29108]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Department has received correspondence in respect of 20 pupils who have not been offered a place in their first choice of school for the coming September.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is aware that Janet Dawson from his Department has visited the island to look at the admissions policy, and that the education officer has publicly stated that there was an error in the school numbers. What advice can my hon. Friend offer about the coming year to the parents, who are frustrated, the angry school governors and head teachers? Does he agree that the promise of a review for the next year just will not do?

Mr. Squire: I obviously have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend's point and those made on behalf of the parents whom he represents. I can confirm that my officials have been in contact with the local education authority, although none of the cases raised with us to date provides scope for action by the Department. My hon. Friend knows that the school must admit up to its minimum number, but it is entirely open to the LEA to agree higher admission numbers with that school. If it wishes to admit more pupils, and it cannot get the LEA to agree to that, it can write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Drugs

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about drugs education and the national curriculum. [29109]

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend and I are committed to the Department—and the education service—playing a full part in the Government's widely welcomed strategy for drug prevention. Aspects of drug education are a statutory requirement of national curriculum science for pupils aged from five to 16, demonstrating the importance that we attach to the subject. It is, of course, for schools to decide how best to organise drug education for their pupils. We have, however, set out in our recent circular the principles that we believe should underpin effective drug education, and at our request the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has drawn up guidance to help schools to plan their curriculum provision in that area.

Mrs. Knight: Young people hear of drugs from a frighteningly young age, so I welcome my hon. Friend's initiative. Does he agree that it is not just what is taught that is important but who teaches it? Teenagers in particular are far more likely to listen to warnings from people with whom they identify, who are probably just a few years older than them, than to listen to warnings from someone of my age, whom they would instantly assume probably does not understand and was never young anyway?

Mr. Forth: I hope that any young person would listen attentively to my hon. Friend, as we all do when she pronounces. She has made an important point. Our circular makes it clear that schools should look imaginatively at every way in which they can get the message about drugs across to young vulnerable people. That will include using teachers in their authoritative positions and anyone from outside a school whom the school considers to be appropriate for its pupils to listen to and be guided by. We want to leave as much of the strategy as possible to the schools to decide, within the framework and the guidance that we have offered them in support. I am confident that that will happen.

Secondary Schools

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools have opted out of local authority control in the last three years. [29110]

Mr. Robin Squire: In the past three years, 448 of England's secondary schools have become grant-maintained.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share the concern of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, that the boon of praise that the Government give for those schools that have opted out has obviously not been shared in Northern Ireland, where it is now apparently policy for grammar schools to report to the education boards when hitherto they reported to the Department of Education? Is this a seamless Government or are we witnessing a different way of governing Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Member will know that my remit does not extend to the schools in Northern

Ireland, but I may say from this Dispatch Box, without risking too much, that, first, I shall relay his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I understand that those comments arise from a consultation paper that my right hon. and learned Friend has issued for discussion. Secondly, I also understand that the aim of the specific proposal to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to simplify school funding and not to extend local authority control over schools. Voluntary grammar schools will continue to he self-governing and there is no intention of changing their autonomy in that respect.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend, however, bear it in mind that if we manage to achieve extra funds for education in the forthcoming year, many Conservative Members will want to make sure that the money goes straight to schools and not to local education authorities to do with as they will? Will he look seriously at any proposal for extra cash to ensure that it goes direct to schools?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the many curious aspects of the policy document that appeared from the Opposition last week was that it tried to justify how, if 10 per cent. of the funding of existing, successful grant-maintained schools was taken away, those schools would still be as effective and efficient as they are at present.

Mr. Rooker: As the Member with probably the country's largest opted-out secondary school in his constituency, with more than 2,000 pupils, may I ask why the Minister thinks that so few schools—he gave a figure of 400—have opted out in the past three years? How many of those have opted out in the past 12 months?

Mr. Squire: The practical reason why relatively few schools have opted out in the past 12 months compared with the previous 12 months is that more than nine out of 10 governing bodies have still refused to give parents the opportunity to vote. If I may extrapolate from that why that should be so, the reason is that Labour Members and councillors and Labour-controlled councils up and down the country are still utterly opposed to grant-maintained schools, notwithstanding the sweet words that we have heard from the Labour Front Bench.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity, following his last answer, to reaffirm that the Government will follow the climate of the Education Reform Act 1988 for grant-maintained schools, maintain exactly the same circumstances in which schools can opt out and tell the country very clearly that the gobbledegook that has come from the Labour party recently on grant-maintained schools is not acceptable to a Conservative Government?

Mr. Squire: I readily reassure my right hon. Friend in that respect. I saw nothing in the past seven days, and I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend did, to persuade us that there was a better way of treating grant-maintained schools than the one that we have established. All the Labour party tried, and failed, to do was to reconcile the preferences of a number of leading Labour politicians with the utter hatred that so many of them have for self-government.

Capital Works, Ealing

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of supplementary credit approval for capital works requested by the London borough of Ealing for the present financial year; and what was the level approved. [129111]

Mr. Robin Squire: No specific requests have yet been made by Ealing for supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—for schools in 1995–96 and thus no SCAs have as yet been issued to the authority. However, the Department is considering whether a further SCA can be issued in 1995–96 for the LEA's liability on capital works at Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic voluntary-aided high school, which received SCA cover in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

Mr. Khabra: Does the Minister agree that, in my borough and across London, resources are being reduced at a time when the number of schoolchildren in London is increasing faster than the national average? Does he agree that the system for determining education annual capital guidelines needs investigating to ensure that resources are directed to where they are most needed?

Mr. Squire: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the essence of his question. The capital guidelines for the current year—the total amount that the Government approve for capital spending by local authorities—was increased in cash terms by 3.5 per cent. The priorities were drawn up a decade ago in discussion with local authorities. I have made it clear that I am happy to revisit those priorities, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect his authority to be treated differently from the rest. The priorities will, logically, continue to be existing projects, meeting basic need, and the removal of surplus places.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for the good work at Cardinal Wiseman high school. All the money will be well spent there. Ealing Labour council has £17 million in reserves, yet it has the effrontery to cut teachers' jobs—it is seeking to cut three at Northolt primary school which should be restored immediately. It has no right to deprive children of a proper education by taking away teachers' jobs or money from schools; there is plenty in the bank and Ealing Labour council had better put it back into schools straight away.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the great discretion that local education authorities enjoy over how they spend their money, but the example of my hon. Friend's Labour-run authority is a very bad one. My hon. Friend also reminds me that the Government's borrowing approvals are but a part of the total capital spending. Indeed, in the most recent full year for which I have figures—1993–94—they represented only 50 per cent. of the total amount spent on our schools.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will commission studies into the educational impact on their original schools caused by the departure of pupils on assisted places schemes. [29112]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: No. The scheme is an outstanding success, and it is here to stay.

Mr. Flynn: Nought out of 10, I am afraid. Would the Secretary of State care to read the question again and try to do better next time? I am seeking to make the serious point that none of the appraisals of the assisted places scheme has concentrated on the effect on feeder schools of having their brightest pupils creamed off. Such schools lose those pupils who give an example to others and who take the lead and set the pace. If we are to make a proper appraisal of the scheme, is it not essential that we consider the effect of creaming off those pupils?

Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not articulating any hostility towards selection, the assisted places scheme or, indeed, independent schools. His Front-Bench team has performed at least half a dozen U-turns on education policy since the beginning of the year. Last week, we were given to understand that it was paying lip service to diversity in education—although the small print revealed that it was not. Next month, the hon. Gentleman might find that his Front-Bench team has left him in the lurch—and that is not a very comfortable place to be.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Surely my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that whether a school is full of SAT—standard assessment task—level 8 or SAT level 2 children should make no difference to the quality of the school. As the purpose of teaching is to bring the best out of every child, it should make no difference to a school, although it may make a difference to the individual child. Should not every teacher concentrate on each child's potential, regardless of the level that each child is innately able to reach?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. The whole point of the assisted places scheme is that it offers choice and opportunity to able children from less well-off families, and what a pity it is that at this stage, and this month, Opposition Members do not seem to be in favour of it.

Nursery Education

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects all three and four-year-olds, whose parents wish it, to be in nursery education. [29113]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Prime Minister's commitment is to provide, over time, a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up, with the first new places, with new money, coming on stream in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not an absolute disgrace that, almost 25 years after Baroness Thatcher pledged that every three and four-year old should have a nursery place if the parents wanted it, the Government have not delivered on that pledge? Why have the Government got it in for three-year-olds?

Mrs. Shephard: We do not believe in printing money. We are planning to provide places for all four-year-olds in the first instance. It is clearly best to take one carefully planned step at a time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) appears to forget that the Labour party was in power between 1974 and 1979. Having been in local government, and having been the deputy chairman of an education authority, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I accept that the education received by a young child—boy or girl—at the nursery stage will undoubtedly affect that child's career, ultimately, and his ability to do well in his subsequent years in education? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that we warmly welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to nursery education?

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend. I am currently putting the finishing touches on the policy and I shall make a full announcement to the House in the next couple of weeks. I have always made it clear that early education is very important. We shall base our policy on maximum choice for parents between the maintained and the private and voluntary sectors. We shall ensure that, whatever delivery mechanism is used, it will not crowd out the private and voluntary sectors. We shall also make sure that the scheme is practical and of good quality and that it will work successfully.

Mr. Don Foster: Further to the Secretary of State's answer, will she confirm that, in respect of the delivery of expanded nursery education, she has said frequently that the use of vouchers would be unnecessarily complicated and bureaucratic? Will she also acknowledge that the Prime Minister clearly overruled her in his statement on Saturday? Does she believe that that stems from complete ignorance, stupidity, or the unacceptable slap of firm leadership?

Mrs. Shephard: Dear me, the hon. Gentleman can do better than that. I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the delivery mechanism would have to provide choice for parents and that nothing was ruled in and nothing was ruled out. However, I can confirm that putting buying power and choice in the hands of parents will be a key feature of the scheme and that, therefore, vouchers will be part of it.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the steady advance of nursery education is not intended to be at the expense of the pre-school playgroup movement, which has received considerable support from the Government?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes. I can confirm that the scheme will certainly not crowd out the important voluntary sector, and I have also mentioned the private sector. The work of the pre-school playgroup movement has been invaluable to the learning experience of millions of children. It is interesting that the movement has rechristened itself the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which I think signifies the importance that it places on the education that it provides.

Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State may have read in this morning's papers about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the fact that Mr. Spock and the occupants of Planet Vulcan do not believe in nursery education at all. On Saturday, the Prime Minister emeritus told us that there was a new definition of nursery provision which included any place for any child. Although we support pre-school and other provision, does the Secretary of State agree that, in defending herself against the onset of vouchers, she must

also make it absolutely clear—so that she is not left uncomfortably in the lurch—that she still believes in nursery places for four-year-olds and that she believes in places for every four-year-old, not just those whose parents who can afford to top up a voucher or travel a long way to a place?

Mrs. Shephard: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman on all those counts. I am sure that he will be further reassured when I make my detailed announcement to the House. My reading this morning included an interesting letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in which he describes Labour's new education policy as a "big, bad idea". I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read that.

School Standards

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what increased resources her Department is providing to raise standards in primary and secondary schools in Somerset. [29114]

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will have welcomed last week's decision to raise the capping limit for Somerset. It is, however, for the authority to decide the level of funding that it provides for its services, including education, from the increased total available. There is no clear causal connection between levels of education expenditure and standards achieved.

Mr. Robinson: Despite the result of Somerset's appeal, is my hon. Friend aware that there are still to be 35 compulsory redundancies in schools in Somerset or thereabouts'? Does he realise that that runs counter to a pledge that was given by the Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council, that the £4 million agreed package with local Members of Parliament would obviate the need for such redundancies'? Does that not show that Liberal Democrats, as always, do not honour their commitments, do not stand by their pledges and are not prepared to put Somerset's children first?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was perplexed—nay, shocked—at what I learnt about Somerset. It does seem to me to be perverse, to say the least, although not surprising, that the Liberal Democrats should so casually go back on their promise. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will press very hard indeed for an explanation from the authority as to why it is playing politics with children's education, and then seek to pressure that authority to use the increased money available to it to better education in the way that I am sure that all his constituents and other people in Somerset expected.

Education Authority Budgets

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration she has given to the preparation of the budgets for education authorities for 1996–97. [29115]

Mr. Robin Squire: The public expenditure survey for spending in 1996–97 is currently under way.

Mr. Dowd: Can the Secretary of State explain why education authorities, parents or schools should believe her protestation of jam tomorrow, in the light of their


experience this year and in all the previous years? If it is because the Prime Minister has committed himself to that, can she be certain that he is telling her the truth, any more than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told her the truth last Friday about his intentions for the leadership of the Conservative party?

Mr. Squire: If I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to education matters for a moment, I should like to say that he starts off from an interesting position in criticising education funding, as his own authority had an increase of 4.6 per cent. this year, which is the type of increase that most of his hon. Friends, and certainly most of my hon. Friends, would have welcomed. However, it is not a question of jam tomorrow, as he puts it. We shall increase spending on education as the economy continues to improve, but we have increased spending until now. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he is reminded, since we came to office spending per pupil has increased by about 50 per cent. and spending per pupil on repairs and maintenance has increased by about 15 per cent. in real terms.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the growing debate about national funding for education that is taking place. May I ask him to draw attention, in any deliberations that are taking place and any negotiations that he has with local education authorities, to the vagaries of the local formulae and the perverse effects that they can have on many schools in the same local education authority area?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right to highlight not only the possibility of a new funding formula—the Education Select Committee, which he chairs, as I said at a previous Question Time, is doing sterling work on that aspect—but the fact that every local education scheme has its own local management of schools scheme. There are 109 different schemes, and within those schemes there is significant scope for education authorities to reflect the different needs of the schools that remain under their control.

Mr. Bryan Davies: During this period, when local authorities have suffered so much from the savagery of cuts inflicted by the Government's failure fully to fund the teachers' pay award, were not local authorities consoled by the opinion of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that things might be better next year? What are those assurances worth from a Prime Minister who may be on his way out and a Secretary of State who may be in that uncomfortable position that she has already mentioned this afternoon—in the lurch?

Mr. Squire: I am confident that the Prime Minister will be Prime Minister in two weeks', two months' and two years' time. On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question—[Interruption.]—it has been a tight settlement, as the Government have freely conceded, but it is interesting, is it not, that every remaining Conservative education authority funded the teachers' settlement in full—as, in fairness, did several Labour-controlled authorities—and most of the problems came from Liberal Democrat and several Labour-controlled local education authorities.

Grammar Schools

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are being educated in

grammar schools in England; and how many of them arc provided with free transport. [29116]

Mr. Forth: In January 1994, the latest year for which data are available, some 118,000 pupils were being educated in selective schools. Information is not available centrally on the number of those pupils being educated in grammar schools and receiving free transport, as that matter is for locally elected, accountable education authorities.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will be aware that with nearly 31,000 grammar school children in Kent—about one third of all children being educated in Kent—we are particularly anxious about the kind of story coming out of Essex, where a Labour-controlled council has denied free transport to grammar school children. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do all that he can to protect our children against that kind of envy politics, which make it impossible for children to receive the kind of education that they deserve?

Mr. Forth: We will always discharge our duty, and the Secretary of State in particular is anxious to protect vulnerable pupils from the depredations of local authorities wherever possible. I emphasise that great discretion is given to local education authorities in determining transport arrangements for pupils in their charge. If people decide in a local election to change the complexion of their local authority, it should not surprise them too much if a vindictive authority controlled by the Labour or Liberal party chooses to wreak cheap vengeance on the pupils in its care.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister accept that a local authority could make funding available for parents who want to send their children to a comprehensive school of their choice?

Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, LEAs have wide discretion in providing transport for the pupils for whom they are responsible. The problem arises when LEAs use that discretion to exercise political leverage over pupils in their care and parents. That is happening in authorities that have passed into Labour control.

School Places, London

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effect of the Greenwich judgment upon the availability of school places of their choice within their own borough for the children of parents resident in Greater London. [29117]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Greenwich judgment removed an artificial restriction on the exercise of parental choice. My right hon. Friend considers that it would be inappropriate to seek a change in the law to overturn its effects.

Mr. Wilkinson: What advice would my hon. Friend give parents in my constituency who are unable to place their children in the secondary school of their choice because children from the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing, Hertfordshire and Harrow are moving into the first-class secondary schools with grant-maintained status in my constituency? As a consequence, parents cannot even place their children in the third school of their


choice. Simply increasing money from the funding agency is no solution because there is an optimum size for secondary schools.

Mr. Boswell: While I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the problems of his constituents, the exercise of choice by parents outwith the borough must he matched with the concerns that he expressed of his constituents within the borough. We do not believe that an artificial distinction determined by geography is the right way to decide the matter. As my hon. Friend implied, it is open to the schools funding agency, in the case of Hillingdon, to bring forward proposals for the expansion of popular schools—where capacity can be provided.

Mr. Gerrard: When will the Minister stop misleading parents into believing that they have a choice of schools? Is not the truth that parents can express a preference but that schools make the choices now? In any case, schools do not have elastic walls. When they are oversubscribed, many parents are left angry and frustrated. Will the Minister start being honest with parents?

Mr. Boswell: As a result of Conservative Government policies, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party recently exercised his choice as a parent in respect of his own child.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents came to live in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington to take advantage of the excellent education available in the London borough of Sutton provided by grant-maintained schools and local authority schools? Would it not be advantageous and in the interests of local parents if greater weight were given in the school admission procedures of both kinds of schools to parents who live locally?

Mr. Boswell: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern but the funding formula is neutral as between children within and without a borough. We do not feel that it would be appropriate to overturn the Greenwich judgment and to disappoint one set of parents at the expense or preference of another.

Curriculum Reviews

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the experience in other countries of permanent standing bodies to review the school curriculum in key subject areas. [29119]

Mr. Boswell: The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is charged with keeping all aspects of the school curriculum under review. In so doing, it takes account of experience in other countries.

Mr. Timms: I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware of the growing concern about the effectiveness of the current ad hoc arrangements for curriculum review, not least because those who are undertaking the review are thrown together for a short while and barely have time to get on top of the subject, let alone come up with effective review proposals? Will the Minister comment

on the possibility—it is a proposal that is attracting wide support—of introducing standing review committees on the model that has been adopted in other countries?

Mr. Boswell: As for experience in other countries, the SCAA has asked for, and circulated, information from 11 other countries. As for our own arrangements, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have only recently, on the back of an almost unprecedented consultation exercise, revised the national curriculum. He will know also from correspondence from its chief executive that the authority is most anxious to continue dialogue with practitioners and to continue to take their advice.

Mr. Stephen: Even though spending per pupil on education has risen enormously during this Government's life, is my hon. Friend not concerned that far too many children are leaving school with little or no understanding of the basic events of our nation's history? Is it that children arc specialising too early'? Will he keep the matter under review?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will realise that we have recently had a massive revision of the national curriculum to make it slimmed down and more manageable. The teaching of history, especially English history, has featured largely in that review. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, while we believe that the proper basis for teaching has now been secured, we shall continue to monitor its effects. We share my hon. Friend's determination to ensure higher and more demanding standards of performance.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister can review the curriculum all he wants, but Warwickshire is facing larger class sizes and 172 teachers losing their jobs this year, lowering education standards. Does he understand that we shall not see the standards that children deserve in the county that I represent in part?

Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to remind his constituents that the teacher count in January was 2,500 greater than the year before. I am sure also that he will want to join me in welcoming the reduction in the work load of teachers that has been brought about by the slimming down of the national curriculum.

Free School Transport

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she intends to take to ensure that pupils attending grammar schools continue to qualify for free school transport. [29120]

Mr. Forth: Under section 55 of the Education Act 1944, it is for individual elected, accountable local education authorities to decide whether free transport is necessary to enable a pupil to attend school.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware that five of my sons attended the local grammar school in Rugby, a grammar school that, like every other, is a ladder of opportunity for pupils from all classes? Is he further aware that Essex county council's spiteful policy of cutting free school transport will prevent many parents sending their children to grammar schools'?


Will my hon. Friend assure me that he and his Department will do all that they can to ensure that free transport to grammar schools remains?

Mr. Forth: I can assure my hon. Friend, who raises a subject of great concern to an increasing number of parents throughout the country, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do everything that she can and should do to protect the interests of pupils. My hon. Friend will be aware, however, that it was the change of political control in Essex that brought about the disgraceful situation that we now face. I am sure that many of those who changed the nature of the local education authority will want to reconsider their actions of some two years ago, and will want to put those actions in the context of what is now available. Under Conservative authorities, the problem did not arise. It has arisen because of nasty political spite by the Opposition parties.

Mr. Olner: Surely it would be better to talk not about grammar school places and free transport in Essex but about transport in Warwickshire and about giving free transport to children who want to attend comprehensive schools and not just grammar schools in the Rugby area.

Mr. Forth: I hope that the people of Warwickshire and those elsewhere will keep a close eye on what their local education authorities are up to. If the hon. Gentleman's LEA acts anything like some others seem to be doing, many of the pupils in his county will risk receiving the education that they deserve.

Further Education Colleges

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received on the current level of discretionary grants paid by education authorities to students in colleges of further education. [29121]

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend has received representations on this subject from a variety of individuals and organisations.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister accept that, to a large extent, many further education colleges depend on their students receiving discretionary awards? In recent years, many of those colleges have seen the number of students attracting discretionary awards reduce quite substantially. Will he make it absolutely clear to local authorities, through extra funding if necessary, that they have a responsibility both to ensure that students receive discretionary awards and to maintain our structure of further education colleges?

Mr. Boswell: What I will do is to make it clear to colleges, whether in Wales or in England, that they receive substantial amounts of public funding to discharge their duties and that one of those is to secure the appropriate provision of further education. How they interpret that duty must remain a matter for them.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that discretionary grants are no longer available to children in Kent because of the totally vindictive action of the Lib-Lab controlling group on Kent county council? That is already affecting youngsters who are talented in dance and music and in other subjects. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that something was done about that?

Mr. Boswell: I am all too sadly aware of that local situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29138]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Cannes attending the European Council.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House rather anticipated me. I had not called Mr. Keith Hill. However, we shall take his question as read, and I now call Mr. Hill to put his supplementary question.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for sorting out the confusion that seems to overwhelm the Conservative party. Does the Leader of the House agree that if anyone other than the Prime Minister wins the current leadership election contest on Tuesday, he will have no democratic legitimacy to govern because he will not have the consent of the people for the policies that he pursues?

Mr. Newton: Those of us on the Government Benches have the democratic legitimacy of the fact that we achieved more votes in the last election than any party had ever achieved in a British election. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will win.

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29139]

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the matchless city of Chester, crime continues to fall and detection rates continue to improve? Is he further aware that in Chester, since 1979, the number of policemen has increased by 38 per cent. and that the only time that police numbers in Chester have fallen was under the last Labour Government? Is he also aware that, this year, Cheshire is to get an additional 195 police officers and special constables for policing on the beat? Does my right hon. Friend share Chester's and Cheshire's commitment to front-line policing?

Mr. Newton: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on making those points and, indeed, Cheshire police on their achievements. I understand that recorded crime in the county fell by some 7 per cent. in 1994 and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was able to visit the force recently and to congratulate it personally on its policy of front-line policing. Her Majesty's Government are supporting the force with a funding increase of £9 million and are making funds available for closed circuit television in Chester.

Mr. Blair: Has the Leader of the House any awareness not just of the despair, but of the disgust that most people feel about the spectacle that the Conservative party has become? Is not the real choice that the British people want not one between the warring factions of that party, but


one between a Conservative party that is disintegrating and a Labour party that is in touch with the people and ready to serve?

Mr. Newton: Well, it certainly seems to be in touch with the lot of people in Monklands. [Interruption.] I shall not regret it. The people of Monklands may regret it and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman may regret the thrust of his question because, if and when he gets the chance, he will have to stop fudging and come clean on his spending and taxing policies, on his minimum wage and creating unemployment policies, and on his European policies, not for an opt-out, but for a sell-out. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the constituency of Torridge and Devon, West has the highest proportion of older people in the United Kingdom and that, two weeks ago, Mrs. Cleverdon celebrated her 105th birthday? Would he like to consider the wisdom of the Tories in west Devon, especially their Conservative association, which promotes the Prime Minister's cause and has asked me to vote in his favour, which I shall do?

Mr. Newton: I think that I should do three things. I should congratulate my hon. Friend's centenarian constituent, the association, and my hon. Friend on her intention.

Sir David Steel: Could the Leader of the House explain to innocent bystanders such as myself how it is that a party which is proving by the hour that it is incapable of governing itself can have any lingering claim to govern the country?

Mr. Newton: Well, what a typical Liberal question. I am not sure about innocence, but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly a bystander.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government's policies of choice and diversity, of testing and reporting to parents, have driven up standards in education? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Dr. Spink: Does he also agree that the Labour party's recently announced policy would drive down standards in education?

Mr. Newton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the policies of the Government have increased parental choice, raised educational standards and given schools greater freedom, and I equally agree with him that the policies of the Labour party would threaten all those objectives.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Bradford. [29140]

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—partly to the reply I gave some moments ago and partly to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no current plans to visit Bradford.

Mr. Madden: If the Prime Minister cannot visit Bradford, will the Leader of the House urge him to meet

a deputation from Bradford as soon as possible so that there can be discussions about how the city can be helped to overcome the poverty and deprivation that we suffer? If the Bradford congress is successful in devising an inquiry form which is acceptable to the local community, will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to adopt the proposal and fund it from central Government so that the inquiry can be conducted as a matter of urgency, and so that it can be professionally administered?

Mr. Newton: I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Gentleman's request is drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I do not think that I can add very much to what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he last questioned me about this. He will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising an investigation into complaints made about the police in the course of the riots and I think that the hon. Gentleman also agreed on a previous occasion that that is an independent inquiry and can be expected to do a thorough job. As I said before, I think that the right course of action is to allow that investigation to proceed and for discussion between the police and members of the Asian community to continue with the aim of restoring trust. I do not, at the moment, see any need for other inquiries.

Engagements

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29141]

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Harborough, unemployment is down yet again and that confidence in every sector of the economy is up and continues to grow week on week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is all due to the policies of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Newton: The experience reported by my hon. and learned Friend of what is happening in his part of the country reflects what has been happening in our economy as a whole. In the past two years, we have experienced the fastest growth of any major European economy, we have the best record of low inflation for some 30 years, we have unemployment that is well below the European average and continuing to fall and we have a recovery that is export and investment led and that is the most soundly based this country has seen for a generation.

Mr. Hoon: Does the Leader of the House agree with the Foreign Secretary that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has damaged the effectiveness of Britain?

Mr. Newton: It is absolutely clear from the work that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been able to conduct in Cannes that they are acting effectively and continuing to bat for Britain's interests.

Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29142]

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that crime levels in north Hertfordshire have also been falling recently? However, does he agree that there is more to be done and that one way of dealing with it is closed circuit television? I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the £100,000 grant that has been given for closed circuit television for Hitchin town centre. Is it not astonishing that the new Labour administration on North Hertfordshire district council is now reconsidering closed circuit television and talking about big brother? Is that not more like old Labour than new Labour?

Mr. Newton: I have already made some reference to these matters in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). As my hon. Friend said, recorded crime fell by 5 per cent. nationally in 1994. Together with a 1 per cent. fall in 1993, those two years show the biggest fall in recorded crime for some 40 years. I believe that that reflects the efforts that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made to get more police on the beat, to strengthen the law through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and, not least, through his very imaginative scheme for CCTV. I am appalled to learn what my hon. Friend said about CCTV being reviewed by his district council.

Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29143]

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Denham: In the light of the statement by one of the Prime Minister's leading supporters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the programme of the former

Secretary of State for Wales is ultra-right wing and likely to keep the Conservatives out of power for 1,000 years, does the Leader of the House believe that the Cabinet is well rid of him?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has always made a positive contribution to the development of Government policies. My only puzzlement is why he should not have stayed to continue to make that contribution.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29144]

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's celebration of 50 years of achievement by the United Nations was wholly appropriate? Does he also agree, however, that it is unacceptable that this country is expected to bear a disproportionate burden of United Nations military activities when many countries are not even paying their dues? Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on those countries to remedy an unacceptable situation? [Interruption.]

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like me, was present at the excellent ceremony held in Westminster Hall yesterday, which undermined—[Interruption.]—underlined our continuing commitment to the United Nations organisation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded that gathering—it is an important point, to which my hon. Friend has adverted—that we have put forward proposals not only to strengthen UN peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy, but to reform its financial mechanisms. We shall continue to press that case.

Housing

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our housing policies. The Government are today publishing the White Paper, "Our Future Homes". Copies will be available immediately after this statement in the Library and the Vote Office.
Home ownership, opportunity in renting and unlocking resources to provide help where it is needed—those are the hallmarks of the Government's housing policies and have been since 1979. The objective of our housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. A population living longer and staying longer in their homes, together with the breakdown of traditional family structures, means that there will be an increasing demand for homes. We live in a heavily populated country, yet we shall have to meet the demand for new homes in an environmentally sustainable way. The public sector needs to look for new and imaginative ways in which to work with the private sector to achieve our aims.
The proposals that I am putting forward today embody three themes: opportunity, choice and responsibility. Those are things that people value. We remain committed to continued sustainable growth in home ownership. Home ownership is what 80 per cent. of people want. More than 4 million households in addition have become home owners since 1979. Over the next 10 years, our aim is that 1.5 million more families will own their own homes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today underlined our commitment by reaffirming that there will be no cut in the tax relief on mortgage interest for the rest of this Parliament.
Now we want to go further and give more people the opportunity to buy. First, we propose to introduce a new voluntary grant scheme, to give housing association tenants cash help to buy the homes that they live in. Housing associations will receive the full market price and will be able to keep the receipt from the sale to build a new home.
Secondly, we propose to legislate to make it a condition of future grant to social landlords that landlords—including housing associations—commit themselves to making the new houses and flats available for sale to tenants on request. Again, sales will be at full market price, with grant to tenants to help them buy.
Thirdly, we shall challenge private developers, public bodies and housing associations to bring forward development proposals for support from English Partnerships to build on derelict land, to bring more home ownership into the heart of our cities, building healthier, more balanced communities.
We shall also change the renovation grants system to allow a more strategic approach in providing help to low-income home owners, including elderly people and people with disabilities, for essential improvements and adaptations to their homes. We shall have a discretionary system, except for grants for disabled people, which will remain mandatory.
Of course, we realise the real difficulties that are currently being faced by some home owners. Our objective must continue to be sustainable home ownership, able to cope with changing economic conditions.
Sustaining a healthy private rented sector is the second key element in providing people with choices and opportunities. In 1988, we removed the controls that were strangling that sector. Since then, we have seen its steady growth from 1.7 million to 2 million homes. Now we want to do more to unlock new resources.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to legislate to allow the creation of housing investment trusts, to encourage financial institutions to invest. They will benefit from a reduced rate of corporation tax and exemptions from tax on capital gains.
We propose to legislate to help small landlords, by simplifying letting arrangements and making it easier to evict tenants who do not pay the rent. We propose to legislate to improve the safety and fitness of houses in multiple occupation. I intend to strengthen the powers already available to local authorities, particularly in respect of ensuring adequate fire precautions in high-risk houses in multiple occupation. Those proposals will, I believe, sustain the growth in private renting that has been achieved under this Government.
Our White Paper also reaffirms our commitment to maintaining a social rented sector at rents below market levels. Affordable rents mean that people have real incentives to work and to save. On current plans, the Government will provide 180,000 additional social rented lettings in three years. Now we need to look for yet more ways to increase investment through partnership with the private sector, to extend choice and to improve further the service provided to tenants.
We propose to legislate to allow commercial providers to compete alongside housing associations for grants to provide social housing at below market rents, increasing competition so that we can get more homes for taxpayers' money. [Interruption.] Opposition Members who do not want more homes for taxpayers' money are letting down not the Government, but the people who would otherwise be provided with decent homes.
We shall introduce a system to ensure that all new social sector landlords are delivering the required level of service to tenants. There will be no question of operating on an unequal playing field.
There is considerable potential for using large-scale voluntary transfers of local authority stock to help wider regeneration in urban areas. We shall be encouraging transfers—if the tenants agree—in cases where there are benefits for tenants through increased investment, as well as a reduction in the burden on taxpayers. Where there are costs, we shall support transfers that offer the best return on the resources that we have available.
We shall encourage transfer to a wider range of private landlords. That could include local housing companies, as well as commercial landlords. Local authority companies will need to be clearly in the private sector.
By 2005, we intend to transform the remaining large—[Laughter.] For the first time, a Government have committed themselves to transform all the worst housing estates in Britain and the only thing that the Opposition can do is laugh, for they have no policy and cannot face the realities of Britain's housing problems. Opposition Members who care only for party political slogans and do not care to improve the housing of the people of Britain can go on giggling into the next century, for we have work to do.
We shall bring together resources to deal with the worst social, economic and housing problems. Within this decade, we shall see to it that families are no longer brought up in the dispiriting and destructive environment that pervades our worst estates—in councils largely run by the Labour party and where the quality of housing is a standing disgrace to that party throughout the land. It is the Opposition whose rent policies have meant that they have been unable to keep up the decent housing to which the electorate lay claim.
We shall meet housing demand while protecting the environment. We have set ourselves targets for England for the next 10 years, to which Opposition Members on the Front Bench would do well to listen. The first is to reduce the percentage of empty homes in the public and private sectors to 3 per cent. of stock. The second is to reduce the number of Government-owned empty homes, selling off surplus empty homes within six months of their becoming empty. The third is to build half of all new homes on previously developed land, reducing building on green-field sites, protecting the environment and safeguarding the green belt.
We need to ensure that social housing is allocated fairly to those with the best claim to it. In July 1994, we announced that we would proceed with plans to reform homelessness legislation and make the system of allocating social housing fairer—[Interruption.]—not something with which the Labour Front Bench appears to bother. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is a Whip, cannot allow the House to listen to a fairer system.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been the tradition of the House that Ministers make statements uninterrupted, but is it not also part of the tradition that they are serious ministerial departmental statements and not a rant?

Madam Speaker: I am following the ministerial statement carefully and the Minister is deviating considerably. As this is an important statement on which I expect a lot of questions, I hope that he will keep to the statement so that I can allow Back Benchers who seek to question it to do so.

Mr. Gummer: We need to ensure that social housing is allocated fairly to those with the best claim to it. In July 1994, we announced that we would proceed with plans to reform homelessness legislation and to make the system of allocating social housing a fairer one. The White Paper confirms our commitment to legislating on that.
These reforms will put all those with a long-term need for social housing on the same footing, while ensuring that there is a safety net for emergency and pressing needs. Too often, people who fit the statutory categories get a house before people on the waiting list, who have put up with long-term housing problems but do not happen to fit those categories. Local authorities will have greater flexibility to decide what is the best housing solution for people in need of help, in the light of circumstances in their area and of the particular circumstances of the individuals concerned.
To help prevent homelessness, we shall legislate to ensure that suitable housing advice services are available in each local authority area. There will also be more help to low-income households to find a home, through pre-tenancy determinations of housing benefit for those renting in the private sector, and through powers for local authorities to provide rent guarantees.
Sleeping rough on the streets is the most visible form of homelessness. The Government's rough sleepers initiative in central London, which will have invested £182 million of public money over the six years to March 1996, has been highly effective. We shall build on that success to ensure that there is no necessity for people to sleep rough.
In central London, we shall continue the rough sleepers initiative beyond March 1996, including the funding for people who do the hard job of working with the most difficult of cases out there on the streets. We shall also fund resettlement work and an annual winter shelter programme, and shall consider the need for funding for some temporary direct access hostel provision. Outside central London, we shall consider assisting the development of the rough sleepers initiative model in areas where rough sleeping is demonstrated to be a major problem.
We want a better service for tenants in the social rented sector. We have given tenants a wide range of rights so that they have a bigger say in how their homes are run, and so that services are more responsive to local needs. Those changes appear in the council tenants charter, a new and improved version of which we published last week.
However, tenants have not only important rights but important responsibilities, such as to stick to tenancy agreements, to pay the rent, and not to annoy other tenants. Sadly, there is a small minority of tenants whose selfish behaviour makes their neighbours' lives a misery, and we want to help local authorities to deal more effectively with anti-social behaviour. Our proposal is for probationary tenancies, so that local authorities can improve the quality of life for the responsible majority of tenants by taking firm action against the irresponsible minority.
What is proposed is a balanced, sensible package that encourages private initiative and investment, and will promote competition to increase value for taxpayers' money. The package is designed to deliver genuine opportunity and to support individual responsibility, while recognising the responsibility of Government to provide effective help for those who need it.
Our policies are set out in full in the White Paper. A number of detailed consultation papers are also being published either today or over the next few weeks. Those are listed in the White Paper, and copies will be made available in the Library.

Mr. Frank Dobson: From that statement, one would never guess the scale of the housing crisis now harming the lives of families in every part of the country, whether they are owner-occupiers, whether they are renting or whether they are simply trying to get somewhere decent to live. After 16 years in office, the Government have produced a White Paper that neither addresses the immediate problems that millions of people face nor spells out a vision for a future in which everyone in Britain has a decent home.
The White Paper is the product of a Government who have run out of ideas, and who now appear to be living in a world of their own. They have now started ignoring problems in the hope that people will not notice what has gone wrong or who is to blame. The White Paper does nothing to restore faith in the mortgage market, and little or nothing to end the crisis in housing investment. It does nothing to help the homeless or people living in overcrowded accommodation. Indeed, it is all too likely to make matters worse.
As the White Paper has not dealt with many of the problems that people face, I shall put the following specific questions to the Secretary of State. First, will he confirm that despite the one and a quarter million families in negative equity, the half a million families in mortgage arrears and the one third of a million families whose homes have been repossessed in the past five years, his statement did not mention the word "repossession", and the White Paper mentions it only once—and certainly does not come up with any answers?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that despite the Tory general election promise to retain mortgage tax relief, that too has been cut, and that even the promises announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are current only this side of the next general election? Will he confirm that, for every family with serious mortgage arrears in 1982, there are now 21 families with serious arrears, and that for every family whose home was repossessed in 1979, 16 families had their homes repossessed last year?
Is not the Secretary of State ashamed that the number of homes being built for rent by housing associations and councils this year is less than 20,000—the lowest since the second world war? Is it not the case that, for every home being built for rent this year, seven were being built under the previous Labour Government and that, under this Government, rents are rising at four or five times the rate of inflation? Will he confirm that, despite a record number of houses in disrepair, he proposes to end families' rights to renovation grants? Will he explain where he expects the homeless to go when their temporary right to accommodation runs out, especially as fewer homes are available for rent? How will making it easier for private landlords to evict tenants reduce homelessness? Why does he think that a licensing scheme to improve the safety of homes in multiple occupation would amount to "over-regulation and bureaucracy", as stated in the White Paper?
If, as the Secretary of State intends, council housing is to be transferred to private companies, how does he intend to keep rents down, and who will meet the cost of keeping rents down? Why does he refuse to allow councils to start investing in new homes the takings from the right-to-buy sale of council houses?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite anything that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said at his press conference this morning, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales, he approved every word of this housing White Paper, which means that both candidates for the Conservative party leadership are totally responsible for this feeble and useless document?

Mr. Gummer: It is an amazing experience to see that, despite the fact that the Labour party has profited from the theft of the White Paper for some days, that is all that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) can bring forward. His speech contained not a single idea about what he would do and, yet again, not a single suggestion about housing from the Labour party. In each of the previous 16 years we have been in exactly the same position: every new idea comes from the Conservatives, while every carping criticism comes from the Opposition, who still have no ideas.
Moreover, the hon. Gentleman still does not understand that if private landlords are not allowed to run the homes that they let reasonably, there will be no homes to let. The last time that the Labour party placed heavy restrictions on private landlords, it lost 500,000 letting homes. We now insist that if private landlords receive help from the Government to provide homes below market rents, they must meet the same requirements that are placed on housing associations. The hon. Gentleman has clearly not even read the White Paper, despite the fact that he has had an advantage over many hon. Members for several days.
It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Government's housing policy when every day we sell 200 houses to people who were previously in rented accommodation in the public sector. So 200 families a day are buying their own homes through the right to buy, an organisation and system that the Opposition have opposed tooth and nail throughout their period in opposition. In addition, we are building, renovating and improving lettings for those who need supported housing at a rate of 60,000 a year. That is a significant addition to the homes available to those who need subsidised and supported housing.
Once again, the hon. Gentleman has shown that he has not read the White Paper and knows nothing about housing. Publicly to reveal his ignorance after so many days of being able to read the details simply shows how bankrupt he and his party are.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has made an important statement. Housing is an essential of life. Would he accept from me, first, that there is some concern that the Conservative party and the Conservative Government have turned their face against home ownership and are now concerned more with the renting of homes than with home ownership? It would be a great encouragement to those who want to buy their homes if mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—was increased from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent., not least for first-time buyers, in order to give greater confidence and to stimulate home ownership.
Secondly, would my right hon. Friend accept from me, representing as I do the only Conservative-controlled borough council north of the Severn to the Wash, that local government has a role to play in housing? The housing committee of Macclesfield borough council is highly responsible and sensitive to the needs of local housing. It is regrettable that those who have been democratically elected are being deprived of the opportunity to have some say in local government provision of housing.

Mr. Gummer: The Government remain totally committed to home ownership. We are setting our sights on a further 1.5 million families owning their own homes. Now, 200 families, who used to be tenants of the state, are buying their own homes. Local authorities are encouraged to go for large-scale voluntary transfers—LSVTs. I can tell my hon. Friend from my experience in Suffolk, Coastal that when the local authority sold its council stock to Suffolk Heritage, the number of complaints that I used to receive in a month now account for what I get in over a year. That is the difference, because one has a dedicated housing group, which is concerned only about being a landlord. That housing authority had one of the best reputations in the country, and it will confirm that LSVTs is the way to tap into


capital and to use it to improve housing stock. Were even the excellent council in Macclesfield to do that, it would find the means of even bettering its performance to date.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in housing are concerned that the White Paper does not recognise the interlink between the economy and housing? While promoting unsustainable home ownership and doing absolutely nothing for those who already have mortgages in arrears, is not the Secretary of State merely stoking up the fires of excess in housing? In the end, that will mean that more trouble is stored up for the future.
The Secretary of State has said that he believes that young people and families should have a stable environment, but his proposals mean that, in the last year alone, 67,000 homeless families would now have been in short-term, unsustainable accommodation.

Mr. Gummer: On the first point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: an economy with low interest rates and low inflation is an economy that provides sustainable home ownership. There has not been a better time for years in which to buy a house. The average cost of mortgages has dropped from £320 a month in 1990 to £190. I should remind my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that if MIRAS was increased as he suggested, the difference would amount to £10 a month. The real difference is achieved by getting the inflation rate down, keeping it down and, therefore, keeping mortgage repayments down. The policy of the hon. Lady's party would push inflation and mortgage rates up. Her party's policy and the extra taxation needed to fund what she claims she would do would create unsustainable housing.
It is clear from the hon. Lady's final suggestion that she wants to continue to have a system where those in real need are bypassed by those who happen to fall in the right category. That is what she means. A single mother with a child, who had a terrible housing problem, would be left in that accommodation because, technically, she had a roof over her head while someone in better circumstances, fitting the category, would get ahead of her. That is what the hon. Lady wants and if that is Liberal fairness, it is not my concept of fairness.

Mr. Charles Hendry: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing an immensely wide-ranging and positive White Paper? Will he confirm that the essence of what he has said is that there is a massive boost for the funds available for social housing through the recycling of money from the sale of housing association properties, by allowing private developers to bid for housing association grant and by opening the doors to massive new investment from private companies in the private rented sector?
Is my right hon. Friend aware also that there will be a particular welcome from voluntary organisations for his comments on the future of the rough sleepers initiative? Will he confirm that there has been a dramatic fall in the number of people sleeping rough in London as a result of that initiative and will he now undertake a wide-ranging consultation exercise to establish exactly what format the scheme should take?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. What we have announced today will mean that we shall make the very best use of taxpayers' money; draw in a great deal more

money from the private sector; ensure that we recycle that money so that more and more people are given the opportunity for a home of their own; and that we make sure that need is the main reason for entry into social housing—a most important change.
As for the rough sleepers initiative, I promise my hon. Friend that we shall continue to work extremely closely with the voluntary sector. We shall talk to it in detail about how to take that forward. We have introduced the extension of the initiative because of the voluntary sector's very considerable support. My hon. Friend is right that the number of rough sleepers has now dropped in central London—by the voluntary sector's figures, from over 1,000 to the 200 mark.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: After that most inept performance by the Secretary of State, is he aware that in 1979 in the northern region, over 10,000 council houses were built? Last year, 68 council houses were built in the whole northern region. Does he not realise that local authorities have capital receipts from sales under the right to buy with which they could immediately start to build houses? That would not necessarily solve the problem, but it would go a long way towards solving it and releasing people from the lists into houses. When, in the name of heaven, will the right hon. Gentleman get rid of his damned dogma and allow local authorities to use the money to build houses so that people can get houses to live in?

Mr. Gummer: If we are talking about ineptitude, what about a Member of Parliament from the north who does not know that housing associations have been building houses all over the north or recognise that estate action has improved large numbers of estates in the north of England and suggests that I am proceeding dogmatically when I am providing the widest choice ever known in this country? He is clearly so blinkered by his socialism that he wants houses to be built only by local authorities.
The fact is that if local authorities were to spend their accumulated receipts, it would be many of the local authorities that had the least need to provide housing that would have the largest opportunity to spend receipts. The Labour party proposes that authorities should spend them, but, of course, it would have to reduce the grant and capital allowances provided by the Government to those authorities because the Labour party has admitted that it would not increase public expenditure. What would happen is that local authorities would not be able to build or help local housing associations to build, but in the plusher parts of the country there would be plenty of money to spend. If that is socialism, it is a very curious sort.

Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much in the White Paper is very welcome to Conservative Members? Can he clear up one point that concerns me, about charitable housing trusts? Did he say in his statement that in future they would be able to build only for sale? If that is so, I suspect that it will be in conflict with some of their charitable purposes.

Mr. Gummer: No. What I was saying is that in normal circumstances when housing associations build to rent—which is what they do—the right to buy will in future be part of the tenants' offer, so that a tenant who begins renting accommodation under the new deal with the housing association will in future also have the right to


buy. We are extending the right to buy to those who will have houses that will be built in future by housing associations.

Mr. James Molyneaux: When he comes to draft the legislation, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the plight of the owners of Orlit houses, which were built by non-registered housing associations and thereby excluded from grant repair schemes because of a flaw in the drafting?

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Sir Richard Body: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals, will he confirm that when a housing association receives the purchase price from the sale of a house, there will be no restriction by the Government on its ability to reinvest all that money in yet another house?

Mr. Gummer: That is entirely correct. Someone who moves from being a tenant to being an owner releases money for the housing association. The housing association then gets the maximum price to build a new house, which can then be let. That is a constant return system.

Ms Diane Abbott: On the question of council house allocation policies, does the Secretary of State accept that the notion that single-parent mothers are systematically queue-jumping is based on a myth? Nowhere in law do single-parent mothers get priority—homeless families with children get priority. Does he also accept that the children of single-parent mothers are not an inferior type of humanity? Why should the children of single-parent mothers have to suffer in temporary and hostel accommodation because Ministers seek to make moral judgments about those mothers' personal situation?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady did not listen to what I said, which was precisely the opposite. I said that it was a scandal when a single-parent mother in very bad housing was unable to get proper accommodation because someone else who was technically in a higher category jumped the queue ahead of her. The hon. Lady must not let her prejudice interfere with her ears. The fact is that I am on her side and believe that need must be the first priority. If the hon. Lady will join me in fighting to make need the first priority, we shall go arm in arm in the housing sphere.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a particular welcome for his decision to extend the rough sleepers initiative outside London and for his determination that new housing should be built on derelict land and previously used land? Does he accept that, while the aspiration for home ownership remains widespread, there is at least as pressing a need—socially and economically—for a diversified rented sector? If there is no terrible danger to the economy in allowing housing associations to reuse their capital receipts, what particular reason is there for continuing to restrain local authorities from doing likewise?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important to promote home ownership, but it should

be done in concert with providing opportunities to rent accommodation. The Government have changed the rules so that landlords find it worth while to let. Without those changes, there would be no further letting accommodation. This is a further step in the same direction.
Local authorities are of course able to spend a proportion of their receipts, but the problem is that local authority receipts and the need for housing are not in the same places. We therefore think it better to direct the opportunity to build to housing associations in areas where the need is greatest, which is what we are doing. Housing associations are getting the funds where the need is greatest. When they sell their houses, they are able to recycle the sums of money because we have already directed them to where the need is greatest. The problem is that many local authorities have been able to sell large quantities of houses and other assets, but they are not in the places where need demands that they build new houses, which is why we believe that they should be more targeted. Money from the taxpayer should be used to the full.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since 1979, homelessness in the northern region has doubled, council house rents have risen by more than 500 per cent. and people living in the housing association properties to which he referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) cannot afford to pay those rents unless they are on 100 per cent. housing benefit? Of course, if they get a job, they have to consider moving out. Is he further aware that 27,000 properties in the northern region are affected by negative equity? Is that a record of which the Secretary of State is proud? To what extent will the White Paper deal with such problems?

Mr. Gummer: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not mention that properties in the northern region have been allowed to run down and need considerable renovation precisely because of the rent policies of previous Labour administrations and Labour councils. [Interruption.] If tenants are not charged a reasonable amount to contribute towards the upkeep of the accommodation, the accommodation will run down. Opposition Members cannot get upset about it; it is a fact of life. If one does not spend money on the housing, the housing will run down.
We now have a sensible rent policy, and those who cannot afford to pay the rent have the opportunity of receiving the generous housing benefit that costs the Government £8.9 billion. The Labour party is unable to face the fact that the Government's policies have done more to help the homeless and those in poor accommodation than any policies advanced by the Labour party.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent proposals to bring much needed private enterprise into our town hall-dominated council estates—something for which I have argued for a very long time. Does he agree that examples in other countries show how much more the private rented sector can do? For instance, the private rented sectors in Switzerland and Germany are four times the size of our private rented sector and much of their housing is provided by private individuals.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Has he noticed that the Labour party does not understand any of that?


Labour Members laugh at anything that they could learn from anyone else. The Labour party is stuck in the 1940s, when council accommodation was provided for a limited number of people. That council accommodation has deteriorated because the Labour party has never been prepared to find ways of spending money properly on its upkeep.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is no wonder that the Tory party is going to the dogs when, after 16 years in government, it fails to recognise that it is facing a housing crisis. More than a quarter of a million building workers are looking for jobs, there are millions of bricks at the London Brick Company and elsewhere, thousands of people are on the streets without a roof over their heads and many more are on council housing waiting lists. Yet, despite all the talk about negative equity, today the Minister calls upon more people to get up to their necks in debt. The country is in never-never land, living on tick. The Minister, in his swan song speech—he is likely to be dumped—does not have the decency to tell councils to build some houses, get people back to work and put roofs over people's heads.

Mr. Gummer: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that penultimate remark. He has said that every year since I first stood at the Dispatch Box, and he has been wrong every year. I was afraid that he would not say it again this year, because the year that he does not say it I shall really be in trouble.
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. What he says now is precisely what the Labour party said in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and again in the 1990s. It has never been able to meet the housing aspirations of our people. However, we are able to say not only that we have enabled more families to own their own homes and that every day 200 families buy houses under the right to buy and similar schemes, but that 1.5 million more families will purchase houses in the next few years. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with real life and in contact only with the whimsical attitudes of his socialism.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tenants of Hastings borough council will welcome his proposals for housing associations as they are voting to join the 1066 housing association? Will he confirm whether the new probationary tenancies will apply only to new tenants or whether they will apply to existing tenants who are causing problems? Can he also confirm whether responsible flying freeholders in the private sector are regarded as living in high-risk houses of multiple occupation?

Mr. Gummer: I am concerned to ensure that there is a proper balance between the tenant's rights and the tenant's responsibilities. Therefore, it will be for new tenants that the probationary tenancy system will be available. However, we are discussing with the local authority associations ways in which we can help them deal with tenants who are already there and who are causing considerable difficulties to their neighbours.
I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was less than fair—even more less than fair than usual—when he railed at me on the subject of multiple occupation. We need to have a system whereby we protect tenants from the dangers of inadequate fire safety and the like, while not placing on

people such burdens that they do not provide that type of accommodation. Those are vulnerable people in two different ways—vulnerable if the accommodation is not properly protected, but vulnerable if there is no accommodation available.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: If Government policy on housing has been successful and equitable, can the Secretary of State explain why, in the London borough of Newham, expenditure on the homeless has increased from £1 million to over £8 million during the Conservative administration and, moreover, £8 million must be found under the defective standard spending assessment formula—expenditure that should go to other council services, especially education and social services? How has that come about, and why is it fair and successful?

Mr. Gummer: The SSA is equitable, although I know the hon. Gentleman's complaint about Newham being outside the inner London area and I promise to consider that in specifics, so I believe that he will agree with that.
The money is being provided through a system that takes into account the problems that Newham has. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are patterns of change in where people come to live, and that his borough is one of those that has had special pressures. However, he should be especially pleased that the present Government are providing the money to tackle those problems so generously.
We are helping the homeless in a way that was previously inconceivable because of the meanness of previous Labour Governments. The hon. Gentleman is an honourable man and I know that he means well, but the fact is that Conservative Governments provide help for the homeless; Labour Governments talk about it.

Sir David Madel: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) about receipts from the sale of council houses, does the White Paper allow local authorities to spend more of their receipts on modernising existing council houses?
On the issue of housing association tenants being able to buy as a result of the new arrangements, are there any restrictions on their buying and then selling quickly?

Mr. Gummer: In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there will be a number of restrictions similar to those that were imposed in the past.
On money for redoing council accommodation, there are two ways in which we shall help with that. First, we shall encourage large-scale voluntary transfers, which is much the most sensible way of using the capital to improve the stock, so that it is worth more. That is the way in which the LSVT works. It does so without increasing the pressure on the taxpayer, so it has an especially advantageous effect.
Secondly, we are discussing with several boroughs, including Labour boroughs such as Manchester and Hackney, ways in which we can have local authority companies that will be able to do partial LSVTs specifically to improve the quality of stock.
I also mentioned that we shall open up the opportunity to tenants, if they so wish, to vote for private companies taking over accommodation and improving it on terms that protect the tenants from excessive rent increases.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Was not that somewhat overheated presentation by the Secretary of


State simply the grunts and gasps of a Government in their death throes—and a rather poor performance, some of us thought?
Should the populace and the House not be made aware that, during the jousting and the fun of Prime Minister's questions, the Press Gallery was packed, but when we come to this much more serious business of housing problems, all these chaps and the girlies go off to recover from their over-indulgence at lunchtime?

Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a question on the Minister's statement?

Mr. Faulds: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I should like to hear it right away.
While I am on my feet, let me say this. This statement has been running for a long time. It is an important statement. I want to try to call all hon. Members who are standing. I can do so only with the co-operation of the House, and if I have brisk questions and brisk answers. I have the remainder of the House's business to safeguard, so I should like questions to be to the point and brief.

Mr. Faulds: My questions will be brief and to the point, Madam Speaker. I just wanted the country to realise that we do a rather better job than the Press Gallery. Does the Secretary of State realise that figures for the west midlands over the past 15 years of Tory Government are not terribly satisfactory? In 1979, 64 times as many council houses were built as are built now. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that homelessness in the west midlands has risen two and a half times? Think of the suffering that involves for the people of the west midlands. Does the Secretary of State realise that the rise in council rents is five times what it was in 1979?

Madam Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman finished?

Mr. Faulds: Yes, nearly finished. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that households in negative equity in the west midlands affect 63,000 people? Think of the agonies and tragedies that involves for the people of the west midlands—all due to the policies of the Conservative Government over 15 years.

Madam Speaker: There was no question there, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was asking what the Secretary of State is going to do about it.

Mr. Gummer: I would find it easier to believe the hon. Gentleman's concern if he had ever asked a question of me about housing in Question Time since I have been a Minister responsible for housing. If the hon. Gentleman had ever taken part in a housing debate and put points about housing, I would believe his concern. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the vast increase in housing association houses in the west midlands. He is so committed to municipalisation that he cannot do that. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that in the west midlands, large numbers of people are buying their own homes every day, instead of being tenants. He did not mention that the White Paper proclaims a whole range of new ways of helping people to buy or rent their own homes and for more money to be put into housing. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework.

Dr. Ian Twinn: Contrary to the whingeing and negative response of Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be widely welcomed outside the House as well as on Conservative Benches? Does he further agree that the flowering of the housing association movement over the past 16 years has been a great credit to this Government, and that the introduction of the right to buy for new tenants will provide an element of fairness in housing allocation locally, as well as enabling housing associations to plan positively for the development of social housing in future?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. He may have noticed that the Labour party, instead of making sensible proposals for alternatives, has done nothing but barrack during these discussions. If there is any criticism of these discussions, it is that Labour does not want to hear the facts because it has no alternative.

Ms Jean Corston: Is this not another case of the Government pursuing dogma in the face of the evidence? Is the Secretary of State aware of the scale of the housing crisis in Bristol, where 23,000 people are on the council waiting list? To afford the rent for a three-bedroomed housing association property, it would be necessary for the tenant to earn £300 a week. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his White Paper will encourage homeless people to be set against each other, provide in the rented sector only insecure tenancies and irresponsibly promote home ownership among people who evidently do not have the means to afford repairs and maintenance?

Mr. Gummer: If we are going to talk about dogma, that was the most dogmatic statement. Home ownership is unacceptable because some people find that they made the choice wrongly? People who are homeless are bound to fight among each other if it is decided which of them should be given housing on the basis of need? The only kind of housebuilding that there ought to be is local authority housebuilding? That is where the dogma lies. The hon. Lady does not make her case.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his radical and comprehensive statement will be widely welcomed by housing professionals and people in housing need throughout the country? Is he particularly aware that his proposals for local housing companies—which I advocated in my maiden speech on 5 June 1992, which my right hon. Friend will remember—are particularly welcome because they will bring together the benefits of housing management skills in the private and public sectors for the benefit of tenants, for which Opposition Members have no thought?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. We should use every means in our power to help people have decent homes, and not stop a range of opportunities because we have the dogmatic predilections of the Labour party.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State ever take time off to consider that he might be wrong in the solutions at which he has arrived? Has he ever pondered whether it was wrong in principle, many years ago under this Government, to channel money into housing through a housing benefit system that locked people into unemployment instead of funding bricks and


mortar? Can he not be honest with the House for just one moment and consider whether there may have been an error of judgment in that area?

Mr. Gummer: The housing benefit system clearly does not lock people into unemployment, given that unemployment has been falling by 1,000 every working day for months. The hon. Gentleman's alternative is unacceptable. It would mean that, instead of channelling money to those who need it, it would be channelled into bricks and mortar. It was not only the Conservative party that thought that that was wrong. The Labour party saw also that there was a need to target. Targeting of taxpayers' money is essential.
I often ask myself, "Is there a better way of doing it?" The hon. Gentleman should recognise that any sensible person will ask himself, "Can we do it better?" That is why there is a range of new ideas in the White Paper. That is why every year we must find new ways of trying to extend opportunities for the people. It would not help much to put large amounts of subsidy into bricks and mortar, irrespective of the needs of those who live in those houses.

Mr. Michael Stephen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper, which contains many constructive and practical ideas, in stark contrast to Opposition Members, who never have any constructive ideas and can only carp and criticise? Is my right hon. Friend aware that especially welcome in south-east England will be the part of the White Paper that relates to empty houses? At a time when there are 10 times as many empty houses and flats as there are homeless people, it makes no sense to cover our already scarce green spaces in urban and suburban areas with more and more housing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if Labour Members had had their way during the past 16 years, there would have been no capital receipts to spend on new housing, because there would have been no sales of houses to the tenants of housing associations and local authorities?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. When the Labour party complains that not all capital receipts are spent on housing, it fails to mention that there would have been none under a Labour Government because they, Labour Members, were opposed to council house sales. My hon. Friend is also right to say that sustainable development demands that we build as much as we can on brown land, on land that has been used before. That will help us to reinvigorate our cities. It is an approach that fits in with the rest of our planning policies, which are designed to create vibrant towns and cities. My hon. Friend is right to say also that if we are to provide enough homes for the present population and if we take into account the fact that people live longer and families break up more often, we must use every opportunity and recognise that empty homes mean lost opportunities.

Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his approach to the thousands of people waiting for improvement grants—most of them in my constituency are owner-occupiers—will not provide resources to enable them to improve their homes? They are now to be denied the right to a mandatory grant. That will remove the possibility of any effective area renewal.
Will the Secretary of State confirm also that his promise to housing associations that they can use total receipts from sales to build new homes is exactly the same

promise that was given to local authorities in 1980? Why should we believe this promise any more than we should have believed the previous one?

Mr. Gummer: On mandatory grants, the hon. Gentleman has got it right the wrong way round. Local authorities, no doubt including the one that he used to run, want to have the proposed change because with the mandatory grant system as it stands, a local authority cannot say that it wants to channel that grant into a particular scheme in a particular area. That is precisely contrary to the hon. Gentleman's approach, and the local authority world knows that. Perhaps that explains why Sheffield was run so badly when he was in charge of the local authority.
The housing association movement builds houses in partnership with the Government, Government grant and the private sector. When a house is sold to the tenant in future, the full sum will be recycled so that that partnership may continue.

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): How many empty homes are owned by Government Ministries, and what has been the cost of keeping them boarded up and empty for many years? If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the homeless, why has he suddenly decided that it is time to do something about them when he has not done anything before?

Mr. Gummer: We did a great deal before and we have set targets that Departments have to meet. I am going further because there is a major opportunity, particularly with Ministry of Defence property, as a result of changes in the world situation. I know that the hon. Lady has recognised that those changes have meant a big alteration in our military establishment. Therefore, it is important that when those houses become vacant, we move them into the private sector as rapidly as possible. I have said that, in normal circumstances, if the houses have not been sold within six months, they will be put up to auction. That is a major change that Labour was unable to promise at any time when it was in power.

Mr. Terry Lewis: In his new zeal to protect green-field sites, will the Secretary of State consider, when windfall sites occur, deducting unit for unit from identified green-field housing sites?

Mr. Skinner: That was a good question.

Mr. Gummer: It is a very good question. I do not believe that the Government should follow policies that would restrict the opportunity for land to be made available. Therefore, it is right strongly to protect the green belt and to encourage people to produce land for housing within the plan. That is the mix that we want and that is how we shall achieve it. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to seek to encourage the putting forward of land rather than discouraging it by his attack on windfall land.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Is the Secretary of State aware of the effect of his Government's policies over the past few years, of forcing people into dependency on benefits? People in housing association developments are unable to afford the rents without benefits and they fall into the poverty trap. Does he not understand that the long-term consequence of the sort of policies that he has again announced today is that social rented housing will


become a ghetto that is inhabited by people who are elderly or unemployed and dependent on benefits? Is that the sort of future that he wants for social rented housing? Does he think that that is in the long-term interests of this country?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is wrong for two reasons, one of which is that we are taking rent levels into the arrangements for housing association grants. That will help to deal with one part of the problem. Secondly, we have announced the right to buy for tenants who move into new houses in housing associations. There will not be a ghetto, as the hon. Gentleman says. People who own and people who rent their homes will be living side by side, and that is precisely what I want.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: What is in the Secretary of State's White Paper for the thousands of tenants of the private development company, Thamesmead Town Ltd.? In that case, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor transferred council tenancies to private tenancies at unaffordable market rents without giving the tenants the right to choose a landlord. Will he give Thamesmead Town tenants the right to choose a landlord or does he intend to replicate the disaster that is Thamesmead by privatising council housing in the rest of the country?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read at least some of the versions of the White Paper, and will have seen that there is no question of privatising council estates. The only offer is that if the council tenants themselves want to choose a new landlord to ensure that they get the improvement in their homes that is necessary, they may do so. Such improvement often takes the form of something new, because the rent policies of previous Labour-controlled authorities did not permit it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Secretary of State correct the impression given in his statement about disabled people and the adaptation of houses for their benefit? Such adaptations include extensions to houses-for-life into which people can move as they grow older and more infirm. That is not dealt with specifically in the White Paper, but page 39 refers to a future statement. Therefore, the Minister is making claims about the White Paper that have not yet been cashed in.

Mr. Gummer: No; the hon. Gentleman is perhaps mixing two different things. What I said in my statement referred to the fact that the improvement grants for present houses will remain mandatory in relation to changes for disabled people. The other part to which he refers is what will come about as a result of our considering arrangements under our disablement programme in general.

Mr. Cynog Dans: Will the Secretary of State withdraw or change the constraints that have been placed on the power of housing associations to purchase from existing housing stock—to buy houses off the shelf and that sort of thing—enabling houses to be let to people as rented property? Does he not agree that that was a useful and flexible approach to providing housing, and enabled people who otherwise

would not have been able to do so to obtain access to existing housing stock? Will he change those constraints now, because that development has been regressive?

Mr. Gummer: In principle, it is always better if extra accommodation is found or built by a housing association in addition to that which is available anyway, so I start with a prejudice in that the housing association should extend opportunities rather than merely take over one form of tenancy or ownership from another. The position that especially pertains in Wales was meant to meet a real need and problem that had arisen. I do not think that there is any evidence that it is having the deleterious effects that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consider any point that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise with me.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Is the Secretary of State aware of the gravity of the crisis in the funding of repairs and refurbishment of rundown and deprived estates in many of our cities, and that, in the London borough of Brent, which is Tory-controlled, so desperate is the crisis of the lack of investment that the council proposes to tear down desperately needed homes on the Chalkhill estate to build a supermarket, which is not needed, to fund a new development on that estate? Is that not nonsense? Will he agree to consider the environmental and commercial impact of that decision and tell us how his White Paper deals with the current crisis, rather than pursue the vendetta against council housing and the obsession with owner-occupancy that it displays?

Mr. Gummer: Obviously, I cannot comment on a particular planning application that may come to me for determination; that would be wrong, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I find his views odd, because one of the reasons why so much housing stock is not in the best of repair is that not enough has been spent on it, often by Labour councils that have failed to have a sensible rent policy, so that they have been unable to keep houses up. They have used rent as an electoral activity, which is a serious matter.
We have tried. therefore, to find ways through and we have suggested—it would be possible to do this in a number of London boroughs, not least the hon. Gentleman's own—either going to local authority companies or considering LSVT. In that way, one could refurbish precisely the sort of blocks of housing of which he speaks and do it from the capital that is locked up in the region. I hope therefore that he will seek, with his local authority, with which I know he has extremely good relations, to work through that route, and I promise to help him.

Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State has confirmed that housing associations will be allowed—indeed they will be expected—to invest the takings from the sale of houses to sitting tenants in new housing. He has also said that the reason why that cannot apply to local authorities is that, in some cases, they have a large amount of capital receipts but no housing need, and, in other cases, they have few receipts but a lot of housing need. If that is the restraint, will he give a guarantee that, where councils have housing needs and capital receipts, he will allow them to start spending them?

Mr. Gummer: What we do is something even better than that: we provide the capital authorisations and the


ability to spend money in connection with the need. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in his widely publicised demands and statements that the Labour party would allow local councils to spend their capital receipts, he never mentions that the only way that that could be done within the rules put forward by his hon.
Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to remove the direct help for thepoorest councils. That is what would happen. He means that he would allow capital receipts to be spent where they are not needed, but would not provide extra help where it is needed.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful if you could clarify the comments you made, and, dare I say it, the impression you gave in reply to the point of order raised at the beginning of the statement by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). You told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that he had deviated from the script of his statement with which you had been provided, which presumably was also provided for the Opposition spokesman.
It has always been my understanding that an hon. Member has to clear a personal statement with you beforehand, and is not then permitted to deviate from it. However, I was unaware of anything in "Erskine May" which suggests that a Minister making a statement such as that made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon is allowed only to stick to the script, which, as a matter of courtesy, is distributed to the Opposition and to others.
It would be unfortunate if it became a convention, or if the impression was given, that a Minister must not deviate from the precise terms of a statement that has been circulated as a matter of courtesy. You know, Madam Speaker, having been in the House for about the same amount of time as me, that, when the House is in a somewhat excited frame of mind during a statement, many highly politicised comments fly backwards and forwards across the Chamber. Given that, it would be most unfortunate if a Minister was not permitted to respond off the cuff to rather excited comments thrown at him by the Opposition in the middle of a statement.

Madam Speaker: During a statement, Ministers must of course be allowed to respond off the cuff, but only very briefly, to comments from both sides of the House. However, I do expect such responses to be brief, and not to be a great diversion from the statement that a Minister is making. In that respect, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 297 of "Erskine May", which says:
Explanations are made in the House by Ministers on behalf of the Government regarding their domestic and foreign policy … announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business.
I have already said that Ministers often make quick responses in the excitement of the moment and that is perfectly acceptable. Equally, the Minister is making a statement of Government policy—that is what the Minister is doing at the Dispatch Box. Ministers should not at any time attempt to transform that statement into a speech or an attack upon the Opposition, minority parties, or anyone else for that matter. I repeat, statements are the enunciation of Government policy from the Dispatch Box. I hope that that clears the matter up.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your advice on an

important matter? At Prime Minister's Question Time last Tuesday, the Prime Minister made a specific reference to me which was not based on the truth, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition whether he would
publish the earlier, secret report held by the Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149–50.]
I raised a point of order last Wednesday, pointing out that that was not true, and that the Prime Minister had written to me later that day indicating that it was not true. He wrote to me saying:
Although a report may have been published as a result of your party's internal inquiry".
The Prime Minister has not clarified that point in writing or orally, and he has not apologised to the House for it.
Given that, in that same Question Time, the Prime Minister said:
Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign".— [Official Report, 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149.],
I wonder if you can tell us what advice is contained in "Erskine May" for situations such as this, when a Prime Minister has said that I have not done something, when in fact the report to which he referred was published in March 1993; and, when he is asked on pain of his integrity if he will clarify the matter and apologise to the House, he still does nothing.
Surely there must be some protection for hon. Members, wherever they sit and whoever they are, from other right hon. or hon. Members making statements that are simply not true, and when that right hon. or hon. Member is unwilling to come back to the House, admit the truth and apologise.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said, this is the second time that he has used a point of order to raise this matter. The hon. Gentleman may use the Order Paper and try to table questions about the matter. Also, I remind him that we have a local government debate later this week—I am sure that that has been noted by those on the Treasury Bench—and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye during that debate, I shall do my best to call him so that he might obtain an answer from either the Prime Minister or a Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recognise that one of your overriding concerns and wishes is always to protect the rights of Back Benchers. Given the fact that the Prime Minister was not available to answer questions today, I wonder whether you received an approach from the new Back Bencher, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), saying that, given the electoral contest within the Tory party, it might have been fair and more appropriate for him to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.

Madam Speaker: A rather good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Environmental Investment (Accelerated Depreciation)

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the amount of depreciation allowable against tax for investments on certain innovative environmental technologies; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such innovative environmental technologies; and for related purposes.
The Bill that I am seeking to introduce aims to accelerate the depreciation deductible from tax on investments in innovative environmental technologies. The Bill would ensure that 100 per cent. of the depreciation is allowable in the first year. The idea is to stimulate investment in environmental technologies.
Three groups of people would benefit if the Bill were passed. First, it would benefit the firms that make the environmental technology. Those are firms which produce goods and services capable of measuring, preventing, limiting or correcting environmental damage, such as pollution of water, air and soil as well as waste and noise-related problems, and which produce clean technologies where pollution and raw material use are minimised.
The Bill It would also benefit the firms that use the innovative environmental technology, since it makes it easier for them to compete in countries with strict environmental standards. When firms invest, it will initially increase the cost, but it will give them a competitive advantage in the long term. The Bill will benefit us as consumers of industry and citizens of a country that is already polluted. It means that we are likely to be healthier and have a higher quality of life if environmental improvements can be made. That is why I am introducing the Bill, and why it has all-party support.
This technology is big business. The 1994 meeting of experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreed that the world market is currently around $250 billion. It is predicted to reach $600 billion by the year 2000. If we compare that with the aerospace industry, which is currently worth $180 billion, and the chemical industry, which is worth $500 billion worldwide, the scale becomes apparent.
Much environmental technology is in its infancy; that has been well illustrated by the Brent Spar saga. We should be more advanced and more civilised in dealing with our waste products than simply dumping them at sea. The technology to dispose of disused oil platforms needs to be developed as a matter of urgency in a way that will minimise environmental damage and create jobs. This Bill would encourage that technological development. As well as technology to deal with the handling of solid waste, the other growth areas are expected to be the treatment of water and waste water, and air quality pollution control.
It is important that we give British industry the boost it needs to get involved in these growing sectors. At present, Germany, the United States and Japan clearly dominate the environmental industry technologically, with shares of 29 per cent., 22 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the world's patents. That compares with the United Kingdom's 6 per cent. share, and shows that we need to do more.
Yet we have some of the best scientists in the world. What we need is incentives for those scientists to work on environmental technology. That would satisfy the

criteria spelled out in the White Paper "Realising our Potential". That would create wealth and improve our quality of life, more so than many other areas.
Even the technology foresight steering group, which has recently reported, agreed. It felt that it was important to promote a cleaner world by concentrating our research on clean processing technology, on energy technology, on environmentally sustainable technology and on product and manufacturing life cycle analysis, so waste could be minimised at source.
The Bill is based on a scheme of accelerated depreciation on environmental investment which was introduced by the Government of the Netherlands in 1991. The scheme there is directed by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, in close co-operation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
In the Netherlands, there is a very close link between Government-sponsored research and development and the accelerated depreciation scheme. About 60 per cent. of the technologies placed on the list were sponsored by the Dutch Government at an earlier phase of development, so it has proved a valuable link, ensuring that the early stages of research and development are truly effective in being converted to new manufacturing technology.
Several people have remarked to me that it is important that the decision makers are educated so that they appreciate what environmental technology is available. Firms report a surprising ignorance among the people who make the purchasing decisions. I hope that the publicity that surrounds the Bill, which has attracted a great deal of interest, will encourage the decision makers in industry, in local government and in central Government to be more aware of the innovation that is available and to take advantage of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has produced a new economic strategy paper, "Rebuilding the Economy", which asserts that the Opposition's
commitment to raising the quality of our environment is paralleled by our determination to ensure that Britain seizes the enormous market opportunities for environmental technologies.
My hon. Friend has promised to pursue a three-point strategy to raise domestic output in environmental technologies as the base for our export drive. The Bill fits well with Opposition policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Anne Campbell, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Nick Harvey and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT (ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION)

Mrs. Anne Campbell accordingly presented a Bill to increase the amount of depreciation allowable against tax for investments on certain innovative environmental technologies; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such innovative environmental technologies; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Orders of the Day — Environment Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 20

POWER OF SEPA TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT LAND

'.—(1) Where, with a view to performing a function conferred on it by any enactment, SEPA considers that it ought to have information connected with any land, it may serve on one or more of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below a notice—

(a) specifying the land, the function and the enactment; and
(b) requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to SEPA, within such period of not less than 14 days from the date of service of the notice as is specified in the notice—

(i) the nature of his interest in the land; and
(ii) the name and address of each person whom he believes is, as respects the land, a person mentioned in subsection (2) below.


(2) The persons referred to in subsection (I) above are—

(a) the occupier of the land;
(b) any person—

(i) who has an interest in the land as owner, creditor in a heritable security or lessee; or
(ii) who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land; and

(c) any person who, in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land, is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it.

(3) A person who—

(a) fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him in pursuance of subsection (1) above; or
(b) in furnishing any information in compliance with such a notice makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

'.—(1) Notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment or rule of law, information of any description may be disclosed—

(a) by a new Agency to a Minister of the Crown, the other new Agency or a local enforcing authority,
(b) by a Minister of the Crown to a new Agency, another Minister of the Crown or a local enforcing authority, or
(c) by a local enforcing authority to a Minister of the Crown, a new Agency or another local enforcing authority,

for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by either of the new Agencies of any of its functions, by any such Minister of any of his environmental functions or by any local enforcing authority of any of its relevant functions; and no person shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in consequence of any disclosure made by virtue of this subsection.
(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the disclosure to a local enforcing authority by a new Agency or another local enforcing authority of information—

(a) disclosure of which would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security; or
(b) which was obtained under or by virtue of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 and which was disclosed to a new Agency or any of its officers by the Secretary of State.


(3) No information disclosed to any person under or by virtue of this section shall be disclosed by that person to any other person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section, or any provision of any other enactment which authorises or requires the disclosure, if that information is information—

(a) which relates to a trade secret of any person or which otherwise is or might be commercially confidential in relation to any person; or
(b) whose disclosure otherwise than under or by virtue of this section would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security.

(4) Any authorisation by or under this section of the disclosure of information by or to any person shall also be taken to authorise the disclosure of that information by or, as the case may be, to any officer of his who is authorised by him to make the disclosure or, as the case may be, to receive the information.
(5) In this section—

new Agency" means the Agency or SEPA;
the environment" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
environmental functions", in relation to a Minister of the Crown, means any function of that Minister, whether conferred or imposed under or by virtue of any enactment or otherwise, relating to the environment; and
local enforcing authority" means—

(a) any local authority within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of that Part;
(b) any local authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of that Part;
(c) in relation to England, any county council for an area for which there are district councils, and the "relevant functions" of such a county council are its functions under or by virtue of Part IV of this Act; or
(d) in relation to England and Wales, any local enforcing authority within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of Part I of that Act.'—[Mr. Atkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in subsection (3), after second 'section', insert
`or for the purpose of any pollution control functions as defined in section 5'.
Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in subsection (3), leave out 'authorises or'.
Government amendment No. 176.
Amendment No. 20, in clause 107, page 133, line 35, at end add
'(12A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no information relating to any individual or business which has been obtained by virtue of this section or any pollution control functions, shall during the lifetime of that individual or so long as that business continues to be carried on, be disclosed without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business.
(12B) Subsection (12A) does not apply to any disclosure of information which is made

(a) for the purpose of fulfilling any statutory duty falling on the person disclosing it other than under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; or


(b) between enforcing authorities for the purpose of their pollution control functions.'.

Government amendments Nos. 88 and 98.
Amendment No. 249, in schedule 22, page 321, line 15, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the Agency is treated as having determined that information is commercially confidential by virtue of subsection (3) above and it subsequently appears to the Agency that the information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section then the Agency shall—

(a) give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in a register kept or maintained by the Agency under any provisions of this Act, unless excluded under this section; and
(b) give that person reasonable opportunity—

(i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the grounds that it is commercially confidential; and
(ii) of making representations to the Agency for the purpose of justifying any such objection:


and the Agency shall, having taken any representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.'.
Amendment No. 248, in page 322, line 27, after `person', insert
'by disclosing information about a trade secret'.
Government amendments Nos. 99, 104 and 106.

Mr. Atkins: The new clause puts beyond doubt the ability of Ministers, the new agencies and local enforcing authorities to exchange information that will help them in carrying out their environmental functions. They will be able to disclose such information to each other without risk of civil or criminal liability. Amendments Nos. 88, 98, 99, 104 and 106 are consequential to the new clause; they amend the disclosure of information provisions in other environmental legislation to ensure that they are consistent with the new clause.
In Committee, we amended the provisions relating to the remediation registers and the contaminated land regime to exclude commercially confidential information. That brought the provisions into line with other environmental enforcement registers. Amendment No. 176 takes forward an undertaking that I gave at that time to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). It remedies an omission in the copying of the standard provisions. Wherever information is excluded from the remediation register on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, a statement will be placed on the register recording that this has taken place.
In due course, if the House allows me to do so, I shall respond to hon. Members who speak to other amendments in the group.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I express my gratitude to the Minister for correcting the fault to which he alluded concerning the entry in the register. It is extremely important that, where information is kept from the public domain on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, there is a note, so that it is apparent that there is information that is not being disclosed.
We can see the sense in making it absolutely clear, through the new clause, that the new agencies, Government Departments and so on can freely exchange information among themselves. However, I have a question for the Minister. The new clause uses the words "may be disclosed" rather than "shall be disclosed". Clearly, there is an element of discretion here.
I foresee the possibility that the new agencies, which will, we hope, betremendously dynamic in their concern for the environment, will seek to gain information from a Government Department, only to find that the Department is not willing to disclose it. I ask the Minister to give some assurance on this point, or to say that the word "may" has been used so that there can be discretion and therefore withholding of information.
I also put on record the fact that, in Committee, the Opposition repeatedly asked the Government to make provision for true public disclosure. The new clause and the associated amendments in no way meet our demands for proper public disclosure and public accountability. They provide simply for exchanges of information between public bodies, which does not necessarily mean that information will be made available to the public.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: This is an important new clause. Can the Minister tell us why it has been tabled at such a late stage? I should like to think that the reason is that the Minister listened to what we said in Committee. The new agencies will be important and powerful. I am extremely keen that the whole area is transparent. I suspect that there are fears among, for example, local authorities, that they will pass information to the agencies and to others, while not being allowed to have access to information themselves.
The importance of the partnership for the way forward must be recognised. Any steps that the Minister can take to ensure that the new agencies, the discussions and the partnerships behind it are transparent, open and reassuring to people will be extremely welcome.

5 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will be aware that I have real concerns about the disclosure of information, which I raised in Committee. Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 relate in large measure to the concerns in my area and to the actions of South West Water.
Water companies at the moment have to provide information to the National Rivers Authority when they apply for a consent to discharge. That information is then available to the public from the NRA, because it is incorporated in the pollution control register under the Water Resources Act 1991. Under that Act, there are very limited exceptions for commercial confidentiality, and a certificate must be obtained from a Minister to prevent such a release of information. The water companies have never sought such a certificate.
As I explained in Committee, the changes made through the Environment Bill mean that the new agency must state within 14 days whether it accepts that the information submitted is commercially confidential.
If there is an appeal, the information stays off the public register until the appeal is determined. That is important, because South West Water—this may occur also in other areas—never submits full environmental statements with its planning applications. Usually, the planning application is submitted at the same time as the application for a discharge consent. People currently have access to full environmental data because the NRA holds them during the period when the planning application is being dealt with. The proposed change would frustrate that.
If the Bill remains as it is, there will be a clear loss in terms of available information on sewage pollution of


river estuaries and coastal waters, as much of the information derives from studies required to be carried out under consent to discharge applications.
In Committee, the Minister argued that there was no intention to change the existing law, and added that the Government did not believe that they had made a change. The Minister—having agreed in Committee to consider the matter—has written to me. In his letter, he accepts, contrary to the assurances given in Committee, that there is an intention to make a major change in the law relating to access to information on discharges by sewerage undertakers.
The Minister suggested that existing access to information on discharges to water cannot be justified. Yet Department of the Environment circular 13/85 says that the
guiding principle in the legislation is that, subject to specified safeguards, there should be free availability of information
except where there is a need to strike a balance between openness and limited but justified measures of confidentiality. That is why, until now, the Secretary of State has been given limited powers to waive the inclusion of information in registers where he is satisfied that the disclosure of information would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a private interest by disclosing information about trade secrets, or would be contrary to the public interest.
A careful balance was struck when the original legislation was passed, but the Government were then satisfied that the balance in relation to information on discharges into water was right. Those discharges affect bathing waters, shellfish waters, wildlife habitats, drinking water and all sorts of uses of water that affect the public. Therefore, it is vital that the public have access to the relevant information when applications for a consent to discharge are being made.
South West Water regularly claims commercial confidentiality without a ministerial certificate, and it has backed down only when it has been forced to do so. It is reasonable to assume that it will continue to make such applications while trying to deny public access to the information. The measure is fundamental to the principle of openness, and to coastal areas which will be heavily affected by such applications. I also believe that public access to information is required under existing EC environmental policy.
In his letter, the Minister suggests that the new wording is needed to create consistency across the regulatory regime. He argues that the waste water industry should be treated in the same way as integrated pollution control, as it affects, for example, companies such as ICI. But the comparison with industrial discharges is not appropriate. Waste water companies are performing a public function of waste disposal as an emanation of the state. The Department of the Environment has accepted that they are the relevant persons for the purposes of the directive on freedom of access to information on the environment and the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.
The waste water companies are discharging waste for which they themselves are the regulators under the Water Industry Act 1991. There will be a problem if they are able to decide on the prevention of the release of information when they are their own policemen.
The effluent of the waste water industry is not effluent from the creation of any commercial product, so I cannot see the relevance of commercial confidentiality. There can be no question of any competitor obtaining information about a waste water company's operation from the information lodged in a consent to discharge application. The technology for the processing of waste water is well known.
The companies are also monopolies, as there is no competition in their respective areas. How is it justifiable to withhold information from the public about the effect of discharges from public sewerage works and the effect that those will have on the environment? Such discharges can affect every individual living in an area, and I cannot see the reasoning behind the Minister's explanation in his letter.
Can the Minister explain how the protection of the commercial interests of the relevant bodies requires these provisions, and how the proposed changes can be justified in the context of decreasing public access to environmental information, to which directive 313 applies?
This is a matter on which there is great public concern in my constituency. Only yesterday, South West Water revealed that, for its most recent discharge—in my constituency at St. Agnes—it was now interpreting its duty as meaning that it has to treat sewage only during the summer months when the bathing water directive applies, and not throughout the year. That is an entirely new interpretation, which could affect every coastal discharge, not only in the South West Water area but in the rest of the country.
The NRA is currently uncertain about whether it can tackle South West Water's new interpretation, which, while providing a saving to South West Water, is extraordinarily damaging to the local environment and the community. I hope that the Minister will be able to present a good argument. Otherwise, people will interpret that as an extraordinary change of tack from a Government who say that they are committed both to the environment and to the principle of freedom of information.

Mr. Atkins: I should have addressed my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before speaking to the amendments today. I am tempted to ask you whether I should call you Sir Deputy Speaker, or merely Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whichever it is, it is most appropriate that the congratulations of the whole House be given to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should still call me Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Atkins: I shall accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) asked me about the timings, and I was grateful for her earlier words about my fulfilling an obligation which I had agreed to earlier. The hon. Lady posed a question about whether there was somehow a point of difference between "may be" and "shall be" in the wording of the measure. She will understand that there may be occasions—for reasons of national security, for example—when "may be" ought not to be "shall be".
It is not my understanding, nor is it the intention of the Bill, that people should withhold information except for the very best reasons. It will be up to other people to decide what those best reasons are, but it will happen in the minimum of cases.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—in a wide-ranging intervention on what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial area—raised a number of points relating to commercial confidentiality. It is worth repeating that the new section 191B in the Water Resources Act 1991 has been modelled on section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In operating the EPA provisions, and in view of the 14-day time scale for determining whether information should be treated as commercially confidential, every effort should be made to reach a timely decision. These points, incidentally, relate to amendments Nos. 248 and 249.
Consequently, we understand that there have been none of the difficulties that amendment No. 249 envisages. That shows that the 14-day period serves its purpose. I do not see any reason why the same should not be true for the agency, and, frankly, can see no need for further procedures as proposed in the amendment.
Amendment No. 248 would limit the criteria for designating information as commercially confidential. As drafted, the Bill follows the precedent of the Environmental Protection Agency, in allowing any information to be classed as commercially confidential if its disclosure would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a business's commercial interests.
The amendment would limit the criteria to disclosure of information about a trade secret. By inserting a new section 191B in the Water Resources Act 1991, we are bringing the provisions about commercially sensitive information in the context of water into line with those in respect of other mediums under which the agency would be operating.
As the hon. Member for Truro said—indeed, as he knows—his amendment would frustrate that purpose. It is worth emphasising that, in general—a point that I have mentioned on numerous occasions and doubtless will as the agency is set up—there will be no room for unwarranted exclusion of information from the public. Information will be withheld under the provisions only if publication prejudices commercial interests to an unreasonable degree.
We do not envisage any sudden increase in the number of applications for information to be treated as commercially confidential simply because we are moving away from a definition based on trade secrets to one of commercial confidentiality, which already operates in respect of other environmental mediums.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I understand, but I hope that the Minister understands that the water companies are not operating in a normal commercial environment. South West Water has increasingly claimed commercial confidentiality, and, although an appeal is allowed, it cannot be heard in time for the relevant planning processes to be scrutinised.
The Minister is trying to be helpful, and I would ask him to reconsider that matter. I would find it helpful if he agreed to do so, as his colleague's letter misses that fundamental point.

Mr. Atkins: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he also was a reasonable man as regards most of his amendments and new clauses, and I am not in the business of making life difficult at this late stage. I will consider the matter. As it is a constituency issue, he need only write to me about it for me to deal with it as a matter

of course. In that sense, I am prepared to listen to what he has to say, and if I can explain further I will be happy to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

RELEVANT AUTHORITIES TO DEFINE REQUIREMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

`(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority to integrate requirements for environmental protection wherever applicable into its policies and plans and into the performance of its functions under any enactment.
(2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means—

(a) any Minister of the Crown;
(b) any public body,
(c) any statutory undertaker; or
(d) any person holding public office.'.—[Ms Ruddock]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 19—Environmental integration—

'(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority—

(a) to prepare an environmental compliance assessment prior to adoption or approval of any policies or before legislation is introduced into or laid before either House of Parliament which is likely to have significant effects on the environment.
(b) to take account of the information provided by the environmental compliance assessment prepared under paragraph (a) above in the formulation and implementation of policies and legislation so as to avoid, reduce or minimise any adverse effects on the environment and, where possible, to enhance the environment.

(2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means:

(a) any Minister of the Crown,
(b) any public body,
(c) any statutory undertaker, or
(d) any person holding public office.'.

New clause 27—Integration of environmental considerations into discharge of functions—

'.—(1) Each relevant authority may consider the need to protect and enhance the environment when:

(a) determining any policy; and
(b) discharging any functions pursuant to any enactment

(2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means:

(a) any Minister of the Crown
(b) any other public body to which the Secretary of State may by regulations apply this section

(3) The Agency may issue such guidance as it considers appropriate to any relevant authority with respect to the ways in which they should discharge their functions pursuant to subsection (1) above'.

Ms Ruddock: May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No discourtesy was intended by my not doing so initially. Also, I have not yet congratulated the Minister on his elevation, although I know that my colleagues did so at the most recent Environment questions.
It is my pleasure to speak in support of the new clause and those grouped with it. We would be delighted if the Minister were minded to accept any new clause that gave force to the requirement that environmental considerations


be integrated, where appropriate, into every aspect of public policy. As with so many other issues that we have discussed during the passage of the Bill, however, the Government claim to be wholeheartedly in favour of a commonsense and environmentally friendly proposal, but never find themselves in a position to vote for it.
The notion of sustainable development—development that meets the needs of present generations without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs—must lie at the heart of any debate on the environment. As the Government would be the first to acknowledge, no Environment Agency and no Department of State can begin to achieve sustainable development alone; it requires a systematic approach—the limiting of the use of finite resources, the reduction of pollutants from every source, the conservation of energy and the minimising of waste, for example.
In short, such considerations ought to be at the heart of all policy making. The Secretary of State for the Environment claimed as much when he said that the Government
have put in place perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world."—[0fficial Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 35.]
He does boast, does he not? We wish that that claim was justified, but it is our view and that of all the major conservation groups, especially the Council for the Protection of Rural England, that existing mechanisms for achieving environmental integration are weak and inadequate for the task.
New clause 1 is not a programme in itself. It offers a statutory framework to stiffen the Government's commitment and to require those in public office to examine their policies and actions in the light of environmental considerations.
5.15 pm
In Committee, the Government resisted such notions being brought into statute, yet the Minister was at pains to tell us of their achievements in appointing green Ministers and in their report, "Green Housekeeping". I only wish that there were more hon. Members in the Chamber tonight because I suspect that, for most of them, the existence of the "Green Housekeeping" document will come as a great surprise. The Government did not trumpet it in the way that they do so many of their other publications. Sadly, as we heard in Committee, the green Ministers rarely meet and little is known of them.
Since 1993, all Government Departments have produced and published cost compliance assessments, evaluating the cost of any of their proposals on the business sector. The Government demonstrate great enthusiasm for such tests. I trust that today we shall see some enthusiasm for an environmental compliance assessment, which we would very much support. Examining the environmental implications of any policy or draft legislation would undoubtedly ensure a higher priority for the environment.
Labour Front-Bench Members intend to be brief when moving our new clauses because we understand hon. Members' interest in this debate. In conclusion, therefore, integration of environmental considerations into public policy ought to be a prerequisite in an Environment Bill that establishes environment agencies for the first time

and looks forward to the 21st century. Sustainable development cannot be achieved unless the integration of environmental considerations is at the heart of all public policy.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Amendment No. 256 would have placed a duty on the Environment Agency to advise Ministers on matters that it considered relevant to environmental sustainability. As my amendment was not selected, I am pleased to support Labour's new clause 1 very strongly.
The Bill's weakness is that it persists—as the Government persist—in regarding the environment as one issue among several, rather than as the basis of all life, improvement and development, so it does not put in place a mechanism for the integration of environmental issues into policy decisions in all Departments. No such mechanism exists.
We gather that the Cabinet Environment Sub-Committee meets infrequently. As has been said, green Ministers in different Departments do not have the function of greening policy in their Departments, but of studying housekeeping within them. The round table and Sir Crispin Tickell's panel, excellent though they are, have the function only of developing ideas and offering advice to the Government, which does not carry the thing any further.
It is apparent that the nature of policies developed in the Departments of Transport and of Trade and Industry and the Treasury has a huge influence on the extent to which our lives, our economy and our social systems are environmentally sustainable. The Department of the Environment has an influence, but others possibly have even more.
It is clear, however, that the Treasury does not see itself as having anything to do with sustainability. I mentioned on Second Reading a letter that I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he referred to the failure of his civil servants to attend a meeting of the House of Lords Committee on Sustainable Development. The letter says:
The Government's strategy for Sustainable Development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I was therefore not persuaded that it would be appropriate for Treasury officials to give oral evidence on the subject as a whole to the Committee on 7 February".
That attitude illustrates the need for mechanisms to ensure that all Departments address the issue each time that they develop any policy initiative. I am pleased to support new clause 1, which at least has the merit of putting a requirement on the statute book.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I support new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Labour party, but I shall address my comments to new clauses 19 and 27, which my hon. Friends and I tabled, and which have the same aim—to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the decision-making process of Departments, Ministers and public bodies.
As it stands, the Bill misses an opportunity to promote the integration of environmental concerns in all areas of government, despite the Government's recognition of the importance of such integration, and despite the White Papers issued on the environment since 1990—the 1994 "Sustainable Development Strategy" and the 1995 UK annual report.
The Secretary of State claimed on Second Reading that the Government had put in place
perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 35.]
Although the introduction of a Cabinet Sub-Committee on the Environment, the designation of green Ministers in each Department and the sustainable development round table are welcome initiatives, there is little evidence that they have had a significant impact on the integration of environmental considerations across government—certainly outside the Department of the Environment.
Existing mechanisms for achieving environmental integration are inadequate. The Bill provides a chance to establish new procedures to ensure that the environment is put at the centre of the policy-making process. To that end, new clause 19 would require all public agencies to produce an environmental compliance assessment—an assessment that would scrutinise the environmental implications of draft legislation and ensure that information gathered was taken into account in final decision making. That would give the environment a higher priority in decision making, and highlight the environmental impact of decisions that might otherwise be overlooked, such as transport-related pollution resulting from hospital closures.
Placing a duty on all public agencies to provide environmental compliance assessments is not a new concept. Since 1 April 1993, all Departments have produced cost compliance assessments that evaluate the costs of new proposals on the business sector. Such assessments are now routinely carried out. That system was introduced by the Government, and the new clause copies it, but in this case it would ensure that the costs to society from environmental impacts were assessed and addressed in policy formulation.
Many in local government already follow that process in their decision taking, as do several pioneering businesses. I hope that the Government will do the same. I believe that the introduction of environmental compliance assessments would significantly aid the Government's stated aim of ensuring that the environment is considered consistently across government. By accepting the new clause, or at least the principle behind it, the Government could demonstrate that they take that idea seriously.
New clause 27 simply aims to integrate matters in a watered-down manner. It stipulates:
Each relevant authority may consider the need to protect and enhance the environment
when making policy or carrying out its functions. If the Minister will not accept a requirement, surely he can at least allow the principle to be taken into account when organisations or the Government take decisions.

Mr. Atkins: It will hardly come as a surprise to the Opposition that I must ask the House to reject new clauses 1, 19 and 27.
I should be happy to cover our record in detail, but perhaps at this stage in our intended discussions hon. Members would not want me to, and it would probably be unwise to do so. However, our record amply demonstrates our commitment to make progress on environmental integration and assessment.
Quite complex issues requiring careful judgments are often raised, and the new clauses would be of little practical value in improving on existing arrangements, but

we are not content to rest on our laurels—we intend to consider how we can give added vigour to current arrangements. Each Department already has a green Minister—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State told the Environment Select Committee on 17 May that he hoped that the green Ministers would meet about four times a year, but then admitted that they had not met for seven months. Have they met since then? When does the Minister expect them to meet again?

Mr. Atkins: We have met twice this year and we shall meet again in July. Unlike the Labour party, which has an obsession with meeting and planning behind closed doors, we meet daily as and when matters affect our respective Departments. It is nonsense to suggest that the fact that we have had only two meetings during the year demonstrates a lack of commitment. Whenever issues related to environmental activity arise in the course of various Departments' business, Ministers have a view to express, and they do so bilaterally and multilaterally. That is the sensible way to do things, rather than holding formal meetings.

Ms Ruddock: Did the green Ministers discuss at their meeting the proposal to dump the Brent Spar in the Atlantic?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady must not be mischievous.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister accused the Labour party of meeting behind closed doors. Surely he would not want to be accused of doing the same.

Mr. Atkins: Our meetings are held on a regular basis in the course of the process of government. That does not necessarily require a full turnout of every green Minister every time. The hon. Lady asked about Brent Spar. As she well knows, that is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the President of the Board of Trade. It is clear that they are the Departments whence the decisions emanated. When the matter was discussed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told the House exactly what he thought about the situation, and I have nothing to add to that.
I remind the House that it is a long-established part of Government policy that the effects on the environment of existing and proposed policies need to be examined systematically. We committed ourselves formally to doing so in our White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", and we restated and carried forward our thinking in our 1994 sustainable development strategy. We have a green Minister in every Department, whose job it is to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the strategies and policies of Departments—a day-to-day responsibility, as opposed to the collective meetings of which I have already said a little.
The hon. Lady made great play of the fact that we have not made a great song and dance about the documents that we have produced. I remind the House that they include "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" in 1990 and "Environmental Appraisal in Government Departments" in 1994, which added to the economic appraisal that has been available for some time in the Treasury Green Book.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that those documents are not everybody's bedtime reading, however important they may be to the process of government. It is


in the process of government and within the corridors of power that the booklets have been read, and their influence there has been substantial. To suggest that that is not important seems a little shortsighted to me.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister misunderstands my point. The "Green Housekeeping" report, which I have read, did not seem to have the same Government publicity machine behind it on publication as many other documents. If the Government are serious about integrating environmental considerations into the whole of Government policy, surely they ought to take the public with them. That is the key. The Government should encourage public understanding, information and support for such strategies, and I suggest that they have not done so.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady will recall that, when we discussed the matter in Committee, I made it clear that although we were pushing as hard as we could within the Government estate to be aware of all that should and can be done by various Departments, we did not always meet every objective. Being a reasonable person, she will understand that there are always pressures and difficulties that prevent our achieving some objectives. Some areas are better than others, and some are worse.
A lot of work remains to be done, and my Department, the Secretary of State and I are doing it. The documents to which the hon. Lady refers have been given publicity. They might not have aroused the amount of interest in the tabloids that we might have wished for but, in practice, they have been circulated, there is a lot of interest in them and they have had a lot of effect. It is, therefore, unfair to suggest that they have not done what we anticipated.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister will be aware that, last year, his Department published planning policy guidance No. 13 on out-of-town retail developments. One of the reasons for the change was environmental consideration—reducing the number of cars on our roads travelling out of town to shop. Although he claims that Departments co-operate and are integrated, that planning policy guidance document has not yet been published in Wales and does not yet apply there. How, then, can he claim that the Government have an integrated policy and that Departments co-operate and work closely together?

Mr. Atkins: I said that nothing in this world is perfect. There might be areas of weakness that we need to deal with, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to an area that might need more pressure than it has had to date. I shall convey that message to my colleagues who are responsible for planning matters in the Department, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), will have something to say on those matters—if he feels so inclined—later.
I have tried to deal with the concerns that have been raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Deptford for the terms in which she moved the new clause and the speed with which she moved it. As I said, however, we cannot accept new clause 1 and I therefore ask the House to reject it.

Ms Ruddock: I simply wish to put it on record that, yet again, the Government have said that they believe in, and seek to do all that is embodied in, the new clause, the requirement of which is extremely simple—to have on the statute book a responsibility to integrate environmental considerations into areas of public policy making.
The Opposition can have no confidence that the Government follow, or intend to follow, that path if they are not prepared to have it enshrined in statute. We know from what has happened during the passage of the Bill—we suspect that it is why the Government will not accept the new clause—that, behind the scenes, much of the Government's commitment to environmental sustainability is challenged by commercial and private interests to which they subscribe and which they seek not to offend.
We believe that environmental considerations must be at the heart of all Government policies. We regret that the Government, who are so keen on cost compliance assessments, do not believe that the same consideration that is given to private financial concerns should be given to the enhancement of the environment.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 262.

Division No. 177]
[5.33pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Jean


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dafis, Cynog


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dalyell, Tarn


Austin-Walker, John
Davidson, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Bennett, Andrew F
Dowd, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Ms Angela


Berry, Roger
Eastham, Ken


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Galloway, George


Chidgey, David
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garrett, John


Church, Judith
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gordon, Mildred


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce






Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Olner, Bill


Harvey, Nick
O'Neill, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Parry, Robert


Heppell, John
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hodge, Margaret
Pickthall, Colin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)



Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum



McFall, John
Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Timms, Stephen


MacShane, Denis
Tipping, Paddy


Maddock, Diana
Touhig, Don


Mahon, Alice
Trimble, David


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Michael, Alun
Watson, Mike


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Milburn, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Miller, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wise, Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wright, Dr Tony


Mudie, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Stephen Byers and


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Mr. Joe Benton.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Faber, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Amess, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Ancram, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Ashby, David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Gallie, Phil


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baldry, Tony
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Garnier, Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gillan, Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Grant,Sir A(SW Cambs)


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brandreth, Gyles
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burl, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clappison, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coe, Sebastian
Jack, Michael


Congdon, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Darne Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dover, Den
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter






Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lord, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stem, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trend, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Richards, Rod
Wilkinson, John


Riddick, Graham
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Noes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Simon Burns and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Michael Bates.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My office is located in Norman Shaw North. A number of colleagues and I encountered a problem on our way out of that building to attend the Division—the security sliding door connecting Norman Shaw North and Norman Shaw South to the Embankment was stuck closed. We could not get out. I am, unfortunately, slightly inhibited by another problem and I must say that I have done myself no good by trying to gallop to the House to attend the Division. Could something be done about that thoroughly unreliable and, I believe, now unnecessary security apparatus, which is

extremely inconvenient to hon. Members? The door might have caused members of all political parties to fail to get to the previous Division in time and they, therefore, might have demanded of you a fresh Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall arrange for the problem to be investigated. The hon. Gentleman's remarks make me realise how wise I was to allow an extra minute for the Division.

New clause 3

GUIDANCE ON COSTS AND BENEFITS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, upon the passing of this Act, prepare a Report (Costs and Benefits in the Environment Act 1995) to be laid before each House of Parliament which shall contain guidance on the role, definition and usages of the terms "costs" and "benefits" as they occur in this Act.
(2) In preparing the Report, the Secretary of State shall consult with, and have regard to, the opinion and recommendations of—

(a) the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
(b) the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment,
(c) the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development, and
(d) The Prime Minister's Panel on Sustainable Development, as to the content and conclusions of the said Report.

(3) No powers or duties conferred by this Act which entail any assessment of costs or benefits shall come into force until the Report required in subsection ( I ) above, has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 38, page 33, line 13, leave out clause 38.
No. 3, in clause 38, page 33, line 19, leave out from `account' to end of line 6 and insert
`any ministerial guidance as to the likely costs and benefits of the exercise or non-exercise of the power or its exercise in the matter in question, where such guidance exists.'.
No. 252, in clause 38, page 33, line 25, at end insert—
'(3) Nothing is this section shall be construed as implying a requirement on the agencies to use cost-benefit analysis in order to arrive at any decision.'.

Ms Ruddock: The new clause is an attempt to challenge the Government's repeated assertion that cost-benefit considerations in respect of the Environment Agency's functions can properly be enshrined in statute without detriment to environmental protection. It is grouped with alternative proposals relating to guidance and an amendment that would delete clause 38.
I say at the outset that deletion of clause 38 would be our preferred course of action. Similar sentiments are clearly expressed in amendment No. 252, which we also support. That feeling unites not only the Opposition parties but every major conservation and green pressure group in the country. The issue has given cause for concern, which was publicly expressed by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Prime Minister's panel on sustainable development and the Environment Agency advisory committee.
The crux of the matter is that the Environment Agency has been given a principal aim of protecting and enhancing the environment, yet, under both clause 4 and


clause 38, which was formerly clause 37, it has a duty to have regard to "costs" and "benefits". Indeed, in Committee, the Minister said that he believed that clause 37 applied to clause 4. Those debates have caused a great deal of uncertainty, a sense that the agency's principal aim could be subordinated to cost-benefit analysis and a feeling that the draft guidance and ministerial answers to date have only added to the confusion.
New clause 38 would require the Government to face up to the problem that they have created. It requires the Secretary of State to consult his own experts—the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development and the Prime Minister's panel on sustainable development—and then to produce a report containing guidance on the role, definition and usages of costs and benefits. That is a wholly reasonable proposition. Surely the Government should not place a duty on the new Environment Agency unless they can explain how that duty should be put into effect.
Our concern, and that of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and of Greenpeace, which have both taken counsel's opinion on the matter, is that a duty on the face of the Bill will expose the agency to legal challenge by way of judicial review. Costs to industry are easily calculated. Costs to the environment are not. Even if cases do not reach the courts, there is a real danger that the new agency will be constrained in seeking to impose requirements on polluters where considerable cost might be anticipated. The environment stands to be the loser.
Many organisations have pressed briefings and questions on hon. Members for this debate. I trust that the Minister will answer them directly tonight, even if he will not accept the new clause. I wish to repeat only a couple of the questions posed by the World Wide Fund for Nature.
Will the Minister assure us that environmental protection and enhancement will be at the heart of all the Environment Agency's functions? Will he assure the House that costs and benefits will not be the sole criteria by which the standards and targets to be achieved by the agencies will be set? [Interruption.]
The Minister is replying in the affirmative from a sedentary position. I am delighted that he does so, but I would much prefer it if he put his answer more fully on the record. Does he agree that, while costs and benefits are appropriate in guidance, they should not be used as a decision-making process in their own right? They should be used instead to seek cost-effective means for achieving standards rather than determining what those standards should be.
We believe that the fact that the overriding duty of the new agency is to be hedged around with cost-benefit considerations is another example of how commercial interests have been allowed to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Environment Agency. We press the Government, even at this late stage, to hear the force and weight of contrary opinion and to remove that constraint on the Environment Agency before it is too late.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: This subject was much debated in Standing Committee and I think that it is right that we should debate it again. However, that is in the context of a Bill that has very clear environmental aims and that, in my view and in that of all the members of the

Standing Committee regardless of party, contributes much to the environment. In considering this rather contentious subject, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the thrust of the Bill is to give the agency duties to protect or enhance the environment. New clause 3 should be seen in that context.
In Standing Committee, I said that I thought that it was absolutely right that an agency of this nature should have regard to proper cost-benefit analysis. After all, in coming to a conclusion about any difficult decision, it is perfectly reasonable and right to consider all the facts objectively and to try to understand them. That, of course, means considering the costs. It is quite wrong for a responsible body to take action without understanding the cost. However, benefits are also important and environmental benefits, especially for an agency such as this, are absolutely crucial.
In Committee, we understood and debated the difficulty of costing benefits when they are intangible. How, for example, does one cost the destruction or creation of an ancient woodland? How does one cost the maintenance of an ancient water meadow which cannot be restored were it to be destroyed? Those are some of the difficult factors against which it is almost impossible to put facts and figures.
In the Department of Transport, for example, there were huge efforts to try to work out the environmental costs of a road scheme. It was generally thought, after much study, that they could not be properly costed but that they had to be taken into account. Therefore, the Government have a clear duty to give guidance about things that are difficult to cost and of great environmental value so that they can be properly taken into account.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that, to a certain extent, the Bill sends conflicting signals. It places a duty on the agency to protect and enhance the environment but it also contains a cost-benefit clause. I therefore have some sympathy with new clause 3, which provides that the Government should give guidance to the agency on how it is to deal with the cost-benefit analysis. I was struck by a briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which regards a cost-benefit analysis as a useful tool but asks that it should be put in its proper context and for proper consideration to be given to the environment.
I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government are going to advise the agency to take environmental factors into account so that the proper purpose of the Bill can be achieved but the value of the cost-benefit analysis retained. We seek an objective understanding of any actions taken but want proper protection and improvement of the environment included in the equation.

6 pm

Mr. Tipping: Since we discussed the issue in Committee, I have received a document called "Plan It" which was produced by the Nottingham Youth Environmental Forum 1994. It is subtitled "The Essential Guide to Saving the Planet", and a third heading reads "Saving the World Starts Here". It was launched last month by a group of young people in Nottinghamshire, and I commend it to the Minister because it goes to the very heart of the matter.
The young people in question focused on real examples, such as the cost of a new road and how that road affects the environment. They focused on the cost of


protecting an important wildlife site and have borne in mind the need to balance costs and benefits and the need to balance accountancy costs with the desire to save the planet. It is easy to account for the cost of a new road in financial terms but, as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) pointed out, it is much more difficult to put a cost on the destruction of ancient woodland.
I know that the Government are aware of the matter, but my anxiety is caused by the fact that the discussion has only just started. We are in the very early days of saving the planet and balancing the important arguments. I know that the Minister has issued guidance but I do not feel that he has taken the debate much further.
We need to examine closely new techniques about the cost and value of lifting the landscape and environmental improvement. They are key issues, ones on which the young people of Nottinghamshire have focused. Again, I commend their document to the Minister because it goes right to the heart of the matter. As it is "The Essential Guide to Saving the Planet", I have no hesitation in sending it to him and asking him to consider the views set out in it.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: As the Minister will know, the new clause deals not with whether costs and benefits should be recognised by the Environment Agency as important considerations but with whether it is better to include them in ministerial guidelines to the agency or in the Bill. The new clause should be accepted because, if it is not, when there is a query about a pollution incident that needs remedial action, the tendency may be for the polluter to look to the accountant to draw up reasons why the company cannot afford the remedial action instead of looking to its policy development officer to work constructively with the agency to find ways to reduce or remove the pollution. Polluters have to take an important decision. A duty included in the Bill may mean that the agency rather than the polluter could end up in the dock in court.
Since we discussed the matter in Committee, I have received parliamentary answers relating to the enforcement aspects of the existing agencies—Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority—and the frequency and success of the court actions that they have undertaken in the past three years. In a written parliamentary answer relating to HMIP, which undertook 38 court actions in the past three years, the Minister said:
When considering what level of enforcement action to take, HMIP considers not only the environmental consequences and operator culpability
but how to ensure that
remedial action to prevent a recurrence is carried out."—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 524.]
That is good, but the cost-benefit clause means that when HMIP becomes part of the environmental agency, it will also have to take into account the potential costs or otherwise to the polluter before it considers whether to take enforcement action. That is an unreasonable burden to place on the new agency.
If there is a problem for the HMIP side, there is much more of a problem for the NRA side. The NRA undertook not 38 court actions in the past three years but 830, from which the Treasury gained £3 million in fines. The

success rate was very high. Of the 830, 789 were successful; 100 were against water and sewerage undertakers and resulted in fines totalling £500,000.
Are the Government really saying that the enforcement actions of their own agencies have been too successful? Are they saying that the NRA has been unfair to water companies such as Yorkshire Water, which was taken to court 11 times in 1993 and fined £100,000 from its several million pounds worth of pre-tax profits? Are they saying that that was unjust to the polluters?
If that duty is included in the Bill, it will not only weaken the enforcement powers of the agency but will cause delays because of the extra time that the agency will have to take to consider the costs properly before it takes enforcement action. It will also increase the likelihood of the polluter going to litigation rather than taking remedial action on the basis of consensus with the agency, which is what I believe members of all parties on the Committee were driving at.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I stress that we are not opposed to a cost-benefit analysis being undertaken because it is appropriate. Our objection to the cost-benefit analysis being written into the Bill is, as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) said, that it produces conflicting advice. On the one hand, the agency has a duty to protect and enhance the environment but, on the other, it has a duty to take into account the cost-benefit analysis.
That conflicting advice is bad enough for the Environment Agency, but it creates an even greater problem for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Whereas the Environment Agency has a duty to protect and enhance the environment, according to clause 38, SEPA has only to "have regard to" the desirability of conserving and enhancing the environment. It has a rather vague duty under clause 38, but under clause 37 it must take into account the cost-benefit analysis. I think that that negates much of the Bill's impact. It sends out conflicting signals and the resulting conflicts will be tested in various ways, not least through the courts.
The second reason why I do not think that the provision should be on the face of the Bill is that it is not yet a tested method of analysis. The Minister said in Committee that there had been on-going work in that subject and that perhaps properly worked out methods were around the corner. I am not so sure about that. It is clear that there are no good, hard-and-fast methods of assessing cost-benefit analyses. The methods will change from day to day and from year to year and, therefore, they should not be written into the Bill. We do not want to change the statute constantly, so the provision should remain in the form of ministerial guidance which can be altered.
Let us return to the example of the black-throated divers, which became famous in Committee. As I see it, a cost-benefit analysis involves an assessment of cost to business or someone else on one side and benefit to the environment on the other. The black-throated diver is under threat from eutrophication and acidification, among other things. We can work out the cost of eliminating acidification, but if that is the cost of saving the black-throated diver, how could one then work out the benefit of saving the black-throated diver and, finally, arrive at a cost-benefit analysis? If the Minister can answer that question I may go some way towards agreeing with him.
I should like to know how to work out the cost-benefit analysis in the case of the black-throated diver. I think that that would be very difficult to do and, therefore, I think that the measure should remain in guidance form so that we may examine it again when the methodology develops further. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to adopt the new clauses.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Clause 38 has been a fundamental issue of concern from an environmental perspective throughout the consideration of the Environment Bill. On the face of it, the requirement to have regard to costs and benefits looks entirely reasonable. However, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have pointed out, the practicalities are another matter. I do not believe that Ministers have addressed the concerns successfully at any stage because there is no answer to the fundamental concerns about that issue.
In Committee, the Minister admitted that many of the concerns raised about clause 38 would be unacceptable to the working of the agencies. He agreed
that it would be unreasonable to require the Agencies in every case to undertake vast examinations of all possible costs and benefits and that a requirement on the Agencies always to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the costs before they could act would be both damaging and unworkable".
He also agreed
that it is essential to avoid a position in which the Agencies are unable to exercise their judgment or are obliged to exercise it in ways that give undue weight to short term or financial cost for fear that they would be unreasonably exposed to challenge in the courts."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1995; c. 283–84.]
While agreeing on those points, the Minister failed to explain at any stage how to avoid that situation. It is the first time in legal history that statutory environmental agencies are being charged with a duty to place cost considerations ahead of the environment in the decision-making process. No other environmental agency—whether it is the National Rivers Authority, English Nature or the Countryside Commission—has that statutory requirement. The Minister has not produced any examples of where that has been a problem in practice and he has not given any examples of how the application of a cost-benefit analysis would have led to a different conclusion.
6.15 pm
I believe that the duty may open up the agencies to judicial review. Constant legal challenge to the agencies—whether from environmental or industrial interests—would undermine the possibility of their operating satisfactorily. In response to that concern, Ministers have argued that the likelihood of judicial review is slight given alternative appeal mechanisms. Frankly, being bogged down with alternative appeal mechanisms will not resolve the problem satisfactorily—particularly when that process could end in judicial review at enormous cost to the agencies.
As many hon. Members have argued already, Ministers have not explained how environmental—as opposed to financial—benefits and costs can be measured properly. I will not elaborate on that argument because it has been well made today by many hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle). A cost-benefit analysis may be useful in circumstances where it is

possible to identify the costs and the benefits, but overwhelmingly the agencies will be dealing with matters where that is not the case.
It goes even further than that. When it is possible to identify environmental costs and benefits, it is likely that the financial costs and benefits will be taken more seriously. The Government inquiry "Next Steps New Agencies" makes that point, and notes:
Financial targets are given a much higher priority. This appears when New Agencies wish to invest in order to improve quality. Chief Executives do not always feel allowed to make such investments. Furthermore, they believe they are only judged on the result of financial targets".
The guidance issued by Ministers recognises that problem. It states:
it is not always possible to quantify the value of improvements or losses to the environment. Moreover, it is not always obvious what the environmental impact of a decision will be, even in physical terms".
Having noted that problem, however, the guidance fails to set down any solutions. It does not set down factors which should be taken into account when setting agency criteria and objectives. The importance of using the best available science is mentioned in respect of risk assessment, but a clear and more widely applicable framework is not included in the guidance or the Bill as a duty of the agencies. As there is no accepted methodology, it remains more an art than a science. Therefore, I do not believe that it will work in practice and it certainly should not be applied as a statutory duty on the agencies.
The costs and benefits which must be taken into account may also get bogged down in individual detailed decisions. Will they apply to individual cases or will they apply only to overall policies and strategies? The Minister, whose comments I quoted earlier, seemed to accept that it would be impractical for the agencies if they were to apply in every individual case. However, clause 38 refers to particular cases and the guidance refers to the impact on individual companies and industry sectors. That suggests that the Environment Agency will be expected to apply cost-benefit considerations case by case in exercising its powers.
Does that mean that the Department of Trade and Industry will offer advice about how to cost the value of water for every possible use so that the agency can assess the costs and benefits to individual companies and industry sectors as required by the guidance? If the agency must rely on information that is provided by the company or the individual concerned, how will it assess the accuracy of the information supplied? I do not see how a statutory duty to take costs and benefits into account can realistically be placed upon the agency, especially if it requires that sort of detail.
If the Government refuse to delete clause 38, they should at least place a duty upon the agency to take the "best practicable environmental option" in discharging its duties, using its powers or pursuing its objectives. While cost-benefit analysis has a role in the work of the agency, it should be used only to find cost-effective ways of implementing agreed standards and not for deciding what those standards should be. That distinction should be made clear in the Bill and the guidance.
The Government should ensure that other criteria also play a part in setting the standards and targets to be achieved by the agency. Cost-benefit analysis can only


be part of a multiple-criterion system. Without that, the Minister and the Government remain guilty of seeking to apply cost-benefit analysis for the sake of looking good to their business sponsors, without having explained to the House the way in which it will work or considered the way in which it may affect those business sponsors.
As I have argued previously, the environmental movement may have a greater interest than business in pursuing some of those issues. It wishes to test the effect—which may be detrimental—of cost-benefit analysis on the environment, whereas business hopes to benefit from it.

Mr. Dafis: I wish to associate myself very strongly with the anxieties that have been expressed about clause 38. I wish to support the spirit of amendments Nos. 29 and 3—and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which originated from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but which were not selected. I shall speak to my amendment, No. 252, which would provide a useful safeguard if the Government were to insist on retaining clause 38. It is obvious to me, as it is to other people, that the consideration of the costs and benefits of any action is simply a matter of common sense. Of course costs and benefits should be considered. Obviously, it would be absurd to go to enormous cost to achieve an insignificant environmental benefit.
I welcome some of the statements that have been made by the Secretary of State about the issue of costs and benefits, because he has emphasised a new interpretation of them, different from the one with which we have become familiar. Rather than emphasising the need for environmental benefits to be justified in terms of economic cost, he has emphasised the other approach—the need to consider carefully whether any economic benefit can be justified in terms of the considerable environmental cost that it might entail. That is a useful interpretation of the idea of costs and benefits. It has contributed to a fuller understanding of the subject. However, I would strongly question, as others have done, the need to state on the face of the Bill what is a matter of common sense.
I wish to go further, and consider the issue of cost-benefit analysis as distinct from merely considering costs and benefits, because it is not quite the same thing. I have grave reservations about the use of cost-benefit analysis for any purpose. I regard it as a spurious sub-discipline of conventional economics, attempting to encompass considerations that properly belong to the fields of natural science and ethics.
Conventional economics is in deep trouble these days, and it has great difficulty coping with the revolution in understanding that environmental politics brings to us. So there it is, trying to encompass that difficulty, or to modernise itself, as it were, by inventing what I regard as a spurious sub-discipline. It does so by monetising considerations which cannot and should not be quantified in monetary terms, because to try to do so produces ridiculous distortions and wrong decisions.
I shall mention a couple of examples. One is the way in which the Welsh Office highways directorate considers road schemes and uses cost-benefit analysis. The Welsh Office approach to that has been very effectively demolished in the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales document, "Wales Needs Transport not Traffic", which merits careful study. Specifically, that document says:

The only way environmental costs enter the equation"—
in the cost-benefit analysis—
such as the damage done to a site of special scientific interest or an area of outstanding natural beauty, is as a capital cost of land acquisition. Because such sites are often of poor agricultural quality, this cost is usually low, when it should be very high.
Even worse, the cost of acquiring an SSSI is actually reduced because the designation as an SSSI imposes constraints on the possibility of development, so it reduces its development value, reduces its market price and, in a perverse way, creates an incentive to put a road through it. That is an extraordinary situation.
It might be argued that the way to correct that is to place a monetary value on the scientific or aesthetic worth of the SSSI or the area of outstanding natural beauty. However, the question is how to do that, and the fact is that it cannot be done. Any attempt to do so will merely give spurious objectivity to an assessment that cannot be subject to objective measurement. The aesthetic or scientific value of an SSSI is not subject to objective measurement.
Some time ago, I discussed a far worse example of the use of cost-benefit analysis—as I trust that one of the Ministers will remember—in the Adjournment debate that I initiated on climate change. I have had correspondence with his Department following that debate. Cost-benefit analysis is being used by economists in the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change to consider what actions might be appropriate to tackle global warming. That research is being given international credence and is partly funded by United Kingdom public moneys. In the process, it is being suggested that the cost to American gross domestic product caused by reducing automobile production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is greater than the benefit of saving Bangladeshi farmland, on which many thousands of people depend for their subsistence.
Even more serious, and scarcely credible, but nevertheless true, is the fact that the IPCC economists, some of whom are UK economists, are ascribing differential values to human lives and feeding calculations based on such valuations into the consideration of whether specific actions are cost-effective and therefore worth implementing. Typically, an American life is valued at 10 times a Bangladeshi life. That is in the documentation—that is the type of thing that is going on. The Secretary of State, to his credit, is on record as rejecting that opinion. He stated in a question session that he believed that all human lives were of equal value. It is nice to have that type of confirmation.
The question is whether the clause requires the use of cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the draft ministerial guidance to the Environment Agency gives its approval to the use of that spurious sub-discipline. It says:
The use of risk analysis techniques and formal cost benefit analysis may be a useful aid to such consideration in appropriate cases.
I do not believe that it is, although the guidance goes on to qualify that in a way that I welcome. It says:
Costs and benefits which are unquantifiable or which cannot readily be given monetary valuations should also be considered".
It therefore suggests that cost-benefit analysis is done first, and then one considers the environmental value separately from the cost-benefit analysis. In those circumstances, what validity does the cost-benefit analysis


have? In any case, it falls well short of discrediting cost-benefit analysis as a valid academic discipline, which is what is needed.
The dangers of applying cost-benefit analysis to the duties of the agency are illustrated by an example provided today in a briefing document by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It mentioned that a cost-benefit analysis study was commissioned by the National Rivers Authority to consider options for tackling a loss of about £15,000 per year of winter wheat as a result of flooding in Kent. The cost-benefit analysis led to the conclusion that the installation of a land drainage pump at the outfall of the Capel Fleet—I assume that that is a river—should be carried out, at a cost of £250,000. The key is that that decision—to take action—was arrived at by including no costs to the environment and no benefit to the environment from pursuing the option of creating wildlife habitats.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider also the Brent Spar disposal. After careful consideration, Shell reached the conclusion that deep-water disposal would cost £12 million and that horizontal dismantling would cost £46 million. That did not take into account the environmental effects of having a structure such as the Brent Spar, full of toxic waste, in deep water. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as another valid example of cost-benefit analysis not creating the right picture?

Mr. Dafis: I am not sure that Shell carried out a cost-benefit analysis which included environmental considerations. Shell is now claiming that the environmental damage of bringing the Brent Spar to shore is likely to be greater than sinking it. That should all have been considered at the outset, to see whether the Brent Spar could be designed so that it might be brought ashore in an environmentally acceptable way. That raises the question of whether oil should be extracted from deep-sea sources, thereby ultimately creating an environmentally impossible situation.
If the Bill must contain a reference to cost benefits, as the Government believe, new clause 3 should also protect the agency from the requirement to use that spurious discipline. I urge the Government to accept the amendment as an addition to the clause and not a requirement to be deleted.

Mr. William O'Brien: The amendment seeks to improve the Bill, which grew each time it was debated in Committee in another place and in this House. More and more amendments were made and new clauses added, so that the Bill is now one of the largest that the House has enacted for some time. It devotes more pages to schedules than to clauses, and much of the information that it contains will have to be studied by the companies, industry, local government, commercial organisations and even individuals who will be affected by the Bill in some way. We want the Bill presented in such a way that the public will enjoy the full benefit of the legislation.
We in the Opposition do not oppose the principle and spirit of the Bill. There is much merit in the agency arrangements, but we are concerned about the agency's duties and responsibilities. We are not against assessing the cost of schemes, but how are they to be decided? To

leave the Bill in its present form will not help the organisations which will have to analyse costs and compare benefits.
The amendment requires that before any scheme is considered, the Secretary of State—after consulting the bodies involved—will present a report to Parliament so that it will have an opportunity to consider the costs and benefits. That constructive approach will assist everyone and allow the legislation to work properly, by making available information affecting communities.
Reference was made to motorways and motorway construction. I have a particular interest in the diversion of the Al in my area. I would prefer the principle embodied in the Bill applied to that proposed road development because the public would then be able to understand the real implications, compare costs and analyse different schemes that will influence the environment and the health and destinies of individuals. The public would then be able to study the changes proposed by the agency in realigning the A 1 to Ferry Bridge.
New clause 3 is significant and important. The Minister would do a service to the House and to the nation by carefully considering the new clause and the points made by hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who expressed favour for it. All hon. Members who have spoken have offered new evidence for accepting new clause 3.
Our personal experience and knowledge of work involving changes to the environment which have caused damage in many areas prompts us to enter the plea that new clause 3 is constructive, will help the Bill and will benefit the people who have to administer the legislation. I fear what might happen if a proper, sincere and constructive approach to analysing costs and environmental benefits in schemes such as the Al to Ferry Bridge is not taken. That would be doing a tremendous disservice to communities.
There is merit and value in new clause 3. It is not a wrecking clause and it will strengthen the Bill. I ask the Minister to accept the new clause and to acknowledge its value to the Bill.

Mr. Nick Ainger: It has been said that, because of the way in which clause 38 is worded, it is likely that we shall see a rash of judicial reviews. My constituency has not produced such a rash so far, but one of my constituents, Mr. Toby Chapman, has been given leave by the High Court to seek a judicial review of a decision made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. We know that HMIP will shortly become part of the new Environment Agency.
The issue on which Mr. Chapman is seeking judicial review touches on the benefits element of the cost-benefit analysis, which was so interestingly discussed and examined by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). It bears on a decision following an application by National Power to convert Pembroke power station to burn emulsified fuels.
The application was received by HMIP in August 1994. It took HMIP about five months to arrive at the best practical environmental option and BATNEEC—best available technology not entailing excessive cost. After about five months of deliberation and periodic review of recommendations within HMIP, the decision was made that flue gas desulphurisation was BATNEEC, but that


gasification was the best practical environmental option. However, as costs had to be taken into account, it was decided to proceed by reviewing the flue gas desulphurisation proposal and discounting gasification.
My constituent, Mr. Chapman, believes that, because health issues were not taken into account, so he says, by HMIP, there should be judicial review of its decision.
The details of the issue are quite complex, and it is interesting that HMIP has welcomed a judicial review. It will be the first time that its processes will have been tested. Unfortunately, the issue will be tested by a judge. I am not sure of his environmental background and his knowledge of cost-benefit analysis. Although we have judicial review, perhaps it is not the best method to review decisions made by HMIP or, in future, by the Environment Agency.
The new clause refers to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Select Committee on the Environment, the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development and the Prime Minister's panel on sustainable development. All these organisations represent experts in their own areas. They can give advice and make recommendations on cost-benefit analysis. The issue would not be left, as I fear it will be in Mr. Chapman's case, for determination by a judge.
I take that view no matter how well versed the judge may be in law, and irrespective of what he may have been able to pick up on the side on environmental issues. I think that everyone would accept that a judge is not the best person to arrive at a judgment in this instance.
I urge the Minister to accept that the new clause is sensible and should be inserted in the Bill. I fear that, in future, the new agency will be tied down by a rash of judicial reviews because of the way in which clause 38 is worded.

Mr. Atkins: It became apparent during consideration of the Bill in Committee that two members of the Committee had made significant contributions to our debates. One of them was my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who spoke with great authority on many issues. I listened most carefully, therefore, to his interventions in Committee. Secondly, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) always spoke with sound common sense. I found myself, as I know did many of my colleagues, agreeing with almost everything he said this evening, until he reached his conclusion, which seemed to be an illogical turn-about bearing in mind what he had said previously.
No clause has been so misrepresented as clause 38.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: By whom?

Mr. Atkins: By Opposition Members as much as anyone else.
Bearing in mind the comments that have been made, one might be forgiven for thinking that clause 38 represents a radical attack on environmental protection, including an attempt to replace environmental analysis and the precautionary principle as a basis for setting standards, with cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that the short-term value, in terms of money, of benefits, will always outweigh the costs before action can be taken.

Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I shall always give way to the hon. Lady, but I would like to get a little way into my speech. If the hon. Lady insists, I shall give way.

Ms Ruddock: I do insist. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he goes any further, I want him to acknowledge that there is no precedent, and that HMIP does not work under the same conditions. Indeed, the National Rivers Authority never worked under the same conditions. English Heritage, English Nature and the Countryside Commission, all of which are key environmental bodies with which the Government have worked, have not worked under the same conditions. The conditions that we are discussing are unique.

Mr. Atkins: We know that, in Committee, the hon. Lady quoted from briefs from various organisations, all respectable ones that had a great part to play in our proceedings, and made great play of their views. I shall deal with as many of the matters that she has raised as I can.
It is suggested that clause 38 is a Pandora's box, in that any action taken by the agencies could be challenged for the first time in the courts if they, the agencies, could not demonstrate in each instance that the most comprehensive cost-benefit analysis showed beyond reasonable doubt that the action was justified in monetary terms. No doubt we could have an interesting debate about the consequences of adopting such an approach, but it would not be relevant to our consideration of the clause. As was repeatedly made clear in another place and in earlier consideration in this place, there is not that form of duty under clause 38.
In essence, what clause 38 requires is simple. First, it imposes a duty on each agency to consider costs and benefits. Secondly, the clause is limited to those cases in which the agency properly has discretion. Thirdly, it requires the agency to use its discretion in a reasonable way.
The clause gives the agencies considerable and necessary discretion in determining how consideration is best undertaken in the prevailing circumstances. It does not require them to undertake cost-benefit analysis in each case, or to demonstrate a particular balance before they act. It does not place cost-benefit analysis above or in place of environmental assessments. The Government recognise the importance of longer-term and difficult-to-quantify environmental effects.
In short, far from weakening environmental protection, the new duty is an essential element in helping both the regulator and the regulated to focus on environmental priorities in the context of sustainable development, and to avoid misallocation of resources through inappropriate regulatory action.

Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister clarify for me whether he thinks that what he has just said means that the agencies will set their corporate objectives bearing in mind the cost-benefit requirement?

Mr. Atkins: I see no reason why the agencies should not set their corporate objectives in that way. Why does the hon. Lady think that that should not be the case?

Ms Ruddock: I am seeking clarification from the Minister. It is his proposal that we are discussing. It seems possible that the corporate objectives of the agencies


could be set with regard to the cost-benefit requirement. In our view, the corporate objectives of the agencies should be about enhancing and serving the environment.

Mr. Atkins: We have had long debates on Second Reading and in Committee on this issue. I have made it clear on every possible occasion that at the forefront of the Government's mind, and that of the Department of the Environment and eventually those of the agencies, will be environmental considerations. They cannot do that without taking account of costs and benefits. That is the crucial difference between the Government and the Opposition.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I have been approached by the Wildlife Trust for Cumbria, which has expressed some concern about this issue. It asked me to obtain assurances from the Minister that, in five, 10 or more years from now, the work of the agencies will bring about a better future for Cumbria's wildlife. My impression is that that will happen, but I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that that is his view.

Mr. Atkins: I can say yes on two counts, and not only because I would be in dereliction of my duty if I did not accede to my right hon. Friend's request and his continued representations on the lake district, one of the most lovely parts of England. Secondly, I can say yes because, as my right hon. Friend correctly concludes, the Bill sets out just that objective. I have no doubt that, when it becomes an Act, my right hon. Friend's concerns and those of his constituents will not be realised, because the Act will address the matter in strong terms.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me further. If, next year or the year after, the agencies start to do a cost-benefit analysis which leaves out conservation issues and does not enhance the environment or follow the line that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has raised, will the Government be able to instruct the agencies to take far greater account of the desirability of conserving and enhancing natural environmental beauty; or will they not be able to influence the agencies at all?

Mr. Atkins: My understanding is that we could accede to that request. The Government could certainly bring some pressure to bear, and would do so if we felt that my hon. Friend's concerns and mine were not being recognised.

Mr. Dafis: I should like some clarification about the way that the cost-benefit process will be undertaken. The guidance mentions cost-benefit analysis. May I take it that, if the process is used at all, a formal analysis will consider matters that are quantifiable in money terms? If that analysis shows that a measure may not be justified in cost-benefit terms, will the less quantifiable or non-quantifiable considerations subsequently be brought to bear, so that they might overturn the consequence of the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis? The point that I am trying to make is that there is a difference between cost-benefit analysis and a consideration of costs and benefits.

Mr. Atkins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not agree with it. We consistently and continuously made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that, while environmental considerations are at the forefront of what the agencies must do and what my Department is doing, we cannot proceed without considering costs and benefits.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I should like to make some progress, because I have been stuck on the same paragraph for some time.

Mrs. Campbell: My question is on the specific point that the Minister is dealing with.

Mr. Atkins: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Campbell: Many Opposition Members are concerned about costs and benefits being weighed against environmental benefits in a way that we do not think will be fully beneficial. Is one of the reasons for the Minister's approach the fact that his Department is working on what it calls an integrated environmental index, which intends somehow to combine costs with some environmental factors? I do not find that reassuring, but perhaps the Minister could say how his Department or HMIP is thinking about this issue.

Mr. Atkins: I intended to mention that matter, but as the hon. Lady has asked about it, I shall deal with it now. I said in Committee that, in 1991, my Department issued a guide called "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". There was a follow-up in 1994 illustrating its applications to specific cases, and it was entitled "Environmental Appraisal in Government Departments". Also relevant is a document entitled "A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection", which we published earlier this month.
As I said in Committee, the National Rivers Authority has developed a manual on the assessment of costs and benefits, which it currently applies when, for example, assessing proposals for water quality standards. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), have regularly pressed me for greater precision and specification in the requirements that are to be incorporated in the Bill. However, it is important to appreciate that, the more precise and detailed a requirement is, the greater the inevitable risk that it will prove inappropriate in a particular case. The risk that the agencies will be open to challenge for failing to pursue that procedure will follow.
I have made it plain why the Government are not prepared to delete clause 38. Much as Opposition Members may deny it, it is hard to see amendment No. 3 and new clause 3 as anything other than delaying tactics to avoid the early introduction of the duty. They certainly show a lack of confidence in the ability of the new agencies to use their judgment and professional expertise in dealing with a reasonable requirement, and their wide discretion on discharging their duties.
There is an erroneous belief among Opposition Members that somehow there is a generalised right way to take account of costs and benefits, and that it can be applied to all the circumstances that the agencies will face. They also think that it could be discovered if only there was sufficient prior effort and consultation. That is simply unrealistic.
As I said earlier, considerable work has been done on this matter, and I do not think that any technique will be equally applicable in every circumstance. Clause 38 implicitly recognises that the agencies must be able to exercise their judgment on what sort of consideration is appropriate in any particular circumstance. That is likely


to lead to a modest and desirable evolution rather than a single sudden shift in the way that the agencies approach their tasks compared with their predecessor bodies.

Ms Ruddock: Given what the Minister has just said, why does he not accept our view that these matters should be the subject of guidance? He has clearly stated that this so-called science is utterly imprecise, and he has given every reason why agency decisions should be subject to judicial review. He must agree that this is not a proper matter to put in the Bill. I repeat that it would be unique to do that.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady is obsessed with judicial reviews. I have tried to explain that the agencies will be allowed wide discretion. If matters are made more precise and specific, there is a likelihood that more judicial reviews will be held than were conducted in the past. What I said in Committee bears repeating. I remind the hon. Lady that I said:
All challenges by way of judicial review require leave to be given by a judge. If they are unsuccessful they can result in orders for costs against the challengers. Frivolous or vexatious challenges are disallowed. There are significant protections against the bringing of borderline or exploratory cases for judicial review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1995; c. 285.]
As I have said in this debate and in others, being precise and specific is likely to do more harm than good.
Although there is a fundamental issue between the Government and the Opposition on this clause, I suspect that there is not much difference between us on the way that the matter is being addressed. Opposition Members have made it clear that they believe that the cost assessment of any action by the agencies should be of secondary importance. That is not our view. Despite the fact that we have debated this issue time and again, I cannot accept the amendment that proposes to replace clause 38 or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
In summary, at best the amendment of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is confusing. The new clause, as I have sought to explain, is unnecessary, and its interpretation differs from that which we believe. If carried—I am sure that it will not be, because I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to do so—it will result in precisely the field day for lawyers about which so much concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister has been utterly unconvincing. He has failed to answer the fundamental point: why should these matters be on the face of the Bill and not in guidance, their proper place, for which universal acclaim exists on the Opposition Benches and in all concerned bodies outside the House? The new clause must be pressed to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 263.

Division No. 178]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene
Alton, David


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)
Armstrong, Hilary





Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Garrett, John


Austin-Walker, John
Gerrard, Neil


Barnes, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A


Barron, Kevin
Godsiff, Roger


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Graham, Thomas


Beggs, Roy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Grocott, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gunnell, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hain, Peter


Berry, Roger
Hanson, David


Betts, Clive
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Harvey, Nick


Blunkett, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boateng, Paul
Henderson, Doug


Bradley, Keith
Heppell, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Steatham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hodge, Margaret


Burden, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Byers, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chidgey, David
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Illsley, Eric


Church, Judith
Ingram, Adam


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Janner, Greville


Clelland, David
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Keen, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Jane (L 'pool Br'dg'n)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S


Corston, Jean
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Lewis, Terry


Dafis, Cynog
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dalyell, Tarn
Livingstone, Ken


Davidson, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Denham, John
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McKelvey, William


Dowd, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert


Etherington, Bill
McMaster, Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maddock, Diana


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Galbraith, Sam
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michael, Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)






Milburn, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Miller, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Short, Clare


Morley, Elliot
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mudie, George
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Spellar, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Edward
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Walley, Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew


Randall, Stuart
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Salmond, Alex
Mrs. Barbara Roche and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Eric Clarke. 


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bright, Sir Graham


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cash, William


Bates, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Coe, Sebastian


Boswell, Tim
Congdon, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brandreth, Gyles
Couchman, James


Brazier, Julian
Cran, James





Curry, David (Skipon & Ripon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan, Alan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannan, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Fit Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, RI Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, RI Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas






Shaw, David (Dover)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trend, Michael


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Stephen, Michael
Watts, John


Stem, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan
Whitney, Ray


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Sweeney, Walter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sykes, John
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. David Willetts and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

GREATER LONDON REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

'. It shall be the duty of the Agency in determining the regions for which environment protection advisory committees are established and maintained under Section 12 to establish a Greater London Regional Advisory Committee for a region which shall be so constructed as to cover all London Boroughs.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause has the distinction of being supported by the Association of London Government, the local authorities' associations, the London Waste Regulation Authority and the National Society for Clean Air. Perhaps since everyone else agrees, the Minister might be minded to accept the new clause.
We understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the shadow agency board, which has the responsibility because Ministers were not prepared to shoulder it, is still considering both river catchment boundaries for some operational functions and coterminous local government boundaries for representational and other functions.

Mr. Atkins: indicated assent.

Ms Ruddock: I see that the Minister agrees. That is at the heart of why the new clause has to be tabled.
7.15 pm
We believe that London is a special case. The fact that it has no strategic authority and that that is coupled with a large river catchment area poses particular difficulties. We believe that Greater London should be given a specific regional function within the agency and that the best way of achieving that would be to establish a Greater London regional advisory committee.
At present, the National Rivers Authority, which is to be one of the constituent bodies of the Environment Agency, has a Thames region with three sub-regions dividing London into two along the line of the river. Not all of London is covered by the existing Thames region and large parts of counties outside London are included.
I remind the House that London has over 7 million people. It creates 20 million tonnes of waste a year and, sadly, has the worst air pollution in the country. Currently, a great deal of environmental regulation and effort is carried out on a London-wide basis, particularly waste regulation and air pollution monitoring. The Government have appointed a Minister with responsibility for London, although we sometimes wonder why.
Londoners identify with their capital city and desperately want a better environment. One small step towards achieving that would be to identify London as an entity and for the Government to ensure that, whatever other responsibilities are passed, we believe perhaps wrongly, to the agency, on this matter it will take its own decisions. London is unique and it needs a regional advisory committee. That can be established only if the Government acknowledge the need to establish a boundary that is coterminous with the totality of London boroughs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause has the support of all the agencies to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred and my colleagues and I willingly support it. I shall not elaborate in great detail, except to say that the benefit of the way in which the new clause is drafted is that it allows the flexibility to which the hon. Member for Deptford alluded in her speech. It is drafted to suggest that the advisory committee should cover all London boroughs. It does not say that it should be coterminous with the boundaries of the 32 boroughs and the City of London, the outside of the current Greater London area. It is drafted to include those areas, but may go beyond that.
This is not an argument that we must always have a structure that is exactly coterminous with the old Greater London council boundary. However, it is important that all the London authorities are included because, for all sorts of reasons of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker and the House are well aware, London boroughs have a particular status and have powers and responsibilities that are not the same as those at county or district level or even, pursuant to future local government changes, at unitary level outside London. The London boroughs are all of a type in terms of their powers and functions and they should all, therefore, be included within this agency.
Secondly, it is clear that Greater London is not only the most important region for many environmental reasons, to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred, such as the amount of waste created, the incidence of pollution and the density of population, but the weightiest region in terms of population, which causes particular concerns and problems. The recent installation of the Thames ring main was a huge enterprise because of the volume for which it needed to cater. We are talking about an area that, in population terms, is hugely greater than Scotland, Wales or any other economic region.
Thirdly, it is logical—I understand this position—that we begin by working on the basis of river boundaries and river catchment areas. It seems that the shadow agency is thinking in those terms already. If that is the case, it


presumably understands that the illogicality of the present arrangement is that some of Greater London, for historical reasons, does not come within that catchment area. Again, the advisory groups tell us that that problem would be corrected by bringing all of Greater London within the area. The logic of having river catchment areas is not broken by including the whole of Greater London, even though one might also go beyond Greater London.
Fourthly, whatever the ultimate structure, it is important for this geographical area to be able to express its voice. The Minister may say that we should not get into a debate about where advisory committees should exist. We are not arguing for the proposition as a precedent for Greater London authorities in other areas. The Government have always taken the view—I dissent from them in this respect—that one should judge the need for bodies to deal with Greater London on an issue-by-issue basis. This matter is being judged on that basis. All the local authority associations and all the other advisory bodies have said that in terms of the environmental advice that should be given, it is important that London is seen as a whole—in its natural context. It is important that advice can be given on that basis.
Fifthly, the problems and the issues are more complex in London, so the work that needs to be done by the agency would benefit from having an independent standing advisory committee. Clearly, it is useful when dealing with such complicated issues to be able to bring in a body that is the equivalent, at a local, regional level, of a royal commission. It is useful for it to be there permanently, giving advice and so on.
I ask the Minister to be positive, not to rule out the proposition and to respond in a way that leaves the matter open. I hope that he accepts that ours is not a dogmatic proposition, but one that accepts the geography, the practicality and the importance of London as a metropolitan area, huge in population and needing special consideration. I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.

Mr. Atkins: The new clause would require the agency to establish a Greater London regional advisory committee for a region covering all the London boroughs. I agree that the agency will need to be mindful of particular issues relating to London, but I do not think that a region based on London alone is necessarily the best way forward. The Environment Agency advisory committee has now submitted recommendations to Ministers on the agency's boundaries, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 26 June. It proposes committees with political boundaries, drawn as close to river catchment boundaries as possible and using district council boundaries where that provides a better fit.
The EAAC considered the case for a London-only region, but it felt that a region encompassing all the Thames catchment area, including all of Greater London, would deliver better integration across the agency's functions, especially water management. The House will be delighted to know that we are still considering the EAAC's recommendations and that we shall announce the Government's decisions shortly. We shall reflect carefully on the views expressed by London Opposition Members today. I do not think, however, that those matters would be appropriately included on the face of the Bill and I do not think that a Greater London region is, necessarily, the right way forward.

Mr. Simon Hughes: So that there is no misunderstanding, I hope that the Minister will clarify this point. He suggested that the proposition was that the region should comprise Greater London only. I think that he heard both me and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) say that it was not a Greater London-only proposition. It appears, therefore, to coincide with an option that has been suggested to him and which he is considering. Will he clarify that he understands that this is not a Greater London-only proposition?

Mr. Atkins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am saying that the proposition is part of the considerations on which I and my colleagues will have to decide. We have made no decision and we shall be careful in terms of listening to and reading again the views that have been expressed by Opposition Members. I hope accordingly that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will withdraw the new clause.

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he addressed our concerns. The very fact that the Association of London Government has been formed, bringing together boroughs of different political persuasions, shows the common purpose that people find in London. Nowhere is that more significant than in the environment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will, as he has suggested, take seriously the concerns and wishes that we have expressed.

Mr. Atkins: indicated assent.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister nods in assent and I am grateful for that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

EMISSIONS FROM FURNACES

'After subsection (3) of section 47 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (application to fumes and gases of certain provisions as to grit, dust and smoke) there shall be inserted—
(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall exercise those powers so as to.ensure that where any fuel derived from waste material is used for the purpose of any industrial process, the emissions from the burning of that fuel are subject to requirements no less stringent than those which would apply under any enactment to the incineration of that material as waste.".'.—[Ms Ruddock.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Ms Ruddock.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 17—Definition of waste—
'.—For the avoidance of doubt, any waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process, and any enactment relating to the storage, handling, transport, disposal and incineration of waste shall be construed accordingly.'.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: The new clause deals with the fuel derived from waste material. Its purpose is to try to ensure that emissions from the burning of such fuels, sometimes known as substitute liquid fuel or secondary


liquid fuel, are subject to requirements that are no less stringent than those which apply when that material is incinerated as waste.
Hazardous materials, such as paint solvents, have traditionally been disposed of in hazardous waste incinerators. A whole industry has grown up around the incineration process. The disposal of hazardous waste has to be paid for. It is carried out in specially constructed incinerators which are subject to planning controls and to rigorous emission limits. I am not saying that the local population entirely accept hazardous waste incinerators, but I believe that much has been done to dispel the disquiet that arises when an incinerator is constructed.
Cement manufacturers have now been given permission to conduct trials into burning the waste in cement kilns. Secondary liquid fuels are being used as a substitute fuel rather than disposed of as waste. A little while ago, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), who is one of my neighbours, initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject at which I and many other hon. Members were present. The Minister said that because the conditions in the cement kilns were different—that is, they were operating at a much higher temperature—it was not necessary to have the same limits for emissions. That was plainly nonsense. The British Cement Association, represented by Mr. McKenzie, repeated that view to the Select Committee on the Environment when it discussed the subject recently.
What matters to my constituents is what comes out of the kiln in the way of emissions, not what goes on inside the kiln. I gather from what Ministers have said more recently that they have changed their mind on the issue. During this debate, I am anxious to explore the extent to which the Minister has changed his mind and to ascertain how far he is prepared to go towards accepting that secondary liquid fuels should continue to be classified as hazardous waste and treated in exactly the same way as hazardous waste.
There are plenty of economic benefits at stake for cement manufacturers. The new fuel is cheap and companies may even be paid for burning it, but from the point of view of local residents the cement kilns were not constructed for that purpose. They are not subject to a BATNEEC, or best available technology not entailing excessive cost, assessment.
My constituents are concerned that, when fuel is burnt, the cement kilns suffer from frequent stoppages, or what during the Select Committee's inquiry into the matter were called carbon monoxide trips. The problem is that there is little monitoring of emissions during those frequent breakdowns. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has not been able to satisfy residents that, when the kilns break down, emissions that could be damaging are not produced because high temperatures are not maintained. There is considerable concern among local residents that less stringent conditions will apply to the emission limit for kilns than would apply to hazardous waste incinerators.
The other thing that concerns residents is that there appears to be no change in status when a kiln becomes what is called a co-incinerator when it begins to burn fuel. Residents are not consulted, and they do not have an opportunity to object. There is no new plan or process, and local people do not have the right to see all of the

information and data from the trial because it is said to be commercially confidential. That is giving rise to a great deal of concern, and local people are neither happy nor satisfied with what has been said either by HMIP or by the Minister in Committee.
7.30 pm
In Committee, the Minister assured me that fuel would be classified as waste. We are also discussing new clause 17, which states:
'.—For the avoidance of doubt, any waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process, and any enactment relating to the storage, handling, transport, disposal and incineration of waste shall be construed accordingly.'.
We are concerned not only with the terminology but with the way in which waste is treated as a result of being classified as waste, and not as fuel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) conducted an extremely worthwhile inquiry in his role as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. The Committee came up with a number of recommendations, three of which are worth mentioning here. The Committee recommended that the Government formally classify secondary liquid fuel as waste—if necessary by amending the law—thus applying a duty of care to all shipments of secondary liquid fuel to kilns. The Committee also recommended that the Government formally bring the burning of secondary liquid fuel in kilns within the scope of the EU's hazardous waste incineration directive.
The Committee proposed that the adaptation of kilns for the burning of SLF would constitute a substantial change under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, thus ensuring that a change could not happen without informing the local population or without going through a proper planning process.
The Committee also recommended that trials should be limited in duration. Trials have, been taking place at Barrington near my constituency for several years. Trials should not be used as a way of bypassing legislation. A trial should take place over a limited period; it should not be allowed to continue until it becomes a commercial process.
The Minister has discretionary powers to treat cement kilns or co-incinerators in exactly the same way as incinerators. I hope that he will tell us tonight that he will apply that power rigorously. In Committee, I sought to remove the Minister's discretion and to ensure that the same conditions applied, but he rejected my proposal. It would be of enormous assurance to the House, and to my constituents, if the Minister would accept the new clause. That would mean that he will apply rigorously the same conditions to co-incinerators as are applied to incinerators, and that is what we are seeking.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the chance to draw to the attention of the House the important issue of the burning of secondary liquid fuel. In Ketton in my constituency, Castle Cement has been conducting trials of the burning of secondary liquid fuel.
There is a lot of confusion about the issue, and the House should be aware that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has come to the issue rather late. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, she is welcome to inform me, but those of us who have been following the


trials in our constituencies for a number of years have felt that it is only recently that the hon. Lady has got to grips with the issue. I suggest that she has not yet got to grips with the facts.
The purpose of the process is to recycle a fuel that has many constituent parts which are put into cement kilns according to a strictly regulated formula and specification. One cannot predict the mix of products that go into incinerators, which therefore must cope with great extremes and strange combinations of waste. Waste is put together according to a specification, and then fed into the cement kilns.
The regime under which the cement companies must now work came about as a result of pressure put on my right hon. Friend the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and me. The regime was much enhanced a few months ago in co-operation with HMIP, which has been punctilious to the extreme in following this issue.
Monitoring has been taking place throughout the trials. The specification of the fuel has been monitored, as has the environment in and around the cement kilns before, during and after the trials. To suggest that those who live near a cement kiln that is burning secondary liquid fuel are in greater danger than those who live around an ordinary incinerator is wrong.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that satisfactory monitoring has not taken place when there has been an interruption of production? Has there not been public concern in the hon. Member's constituency—and other areas—that monitoring is not taking place during interruptions and the start-ups following them?

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady's intervention identifies exactly where she and her colleagues are mistaken. The temperature in a cement kiln remains very high for many hours—even when it has been switched off—and the trips last only for seconds. The fuel is destroyed in the kiln, which reverts to coal burning within a matter of moments. The concern that the hon. Lady is levelling against the process is misplaced.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is important that local residents are reassured that monitoring will continue during a breakdown, even if that breakdown lasts for only a few seconds? What is important to residents is not the high temperatures in the cement kilns, but what comes out of the kilns. If monitoring is not done during a breakdown, it is impossible for local residents to know whether what is coming out of a kiln is damaging.

Mr. Duncan: I repeat that the heat retained in the cement kiln is such that, even though there has been a slight breakdown, the fuel is destroyed and rendered inert. The hon. Lady should be aware that the regime involves constant monitoring. As a result of the improvements that my right hon. Friend the Minister and HMIP have put in place, my constituents' concerns have been allayed and they are happy to accept HMIP's explanation. About 700 constituents came to an initial public meeting. All of them have learnt what has been put in place to deal with their concerns.

Mrs. Campbell: indicated dissent

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady may well shake her head, but I know what my constituents think. HMIP and many

other experts have addressed them directly. I must advise her that her concern is misplaced. HMIP and the Minister deserve great credit for what they have done to improve the monitoring regime for cement kilns.

Mr. Bennett: I support the new clauses, particularly new clause 17.
The speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested a certain measure of complacency. The Select Committee on the Environment was lobbied very hard by the various interest groups concerned about the burning of secondary liquid fuels and the House wants to be clear exactly who is involved.
There are the traditional companies that have built incinerators at considerable expense and are burning a great deal of waste material to the highest standards. To make the incinerators work as efficiently as possible, they are keen to get waste solvents, which improve the combustion process. They are obviously extremely worried that they might lose the solvents to the cement industry. Those companies—especially Shanks McEwan and Cleanaway—are concerned that they might lose some of the best fuel for their incinerators. The traditional companies thus have a clear and substantial financial interest.
The cement companies clearly believe that, if they can use the fuel, they can dramatically reduce their costs. They suggested to the Select Committee that they might be able to reduce their fuel costs by as much as 35 per cent. They did not totally convince me because they were very coy about how much that would mean on the price of a bag of cement. My inquiries suggest that marketing seems to have more influence on the price of a bag of cement than does the possibility of using such fuels. I understand the problem that they face, however. They do not want to find that they have competition from Europe, where it might be possible to use such fuel and, therefore, to produce cement more cheaply. Two big commercial interests are involved.
There are also the people who live close to cement kilns, for whom I have every sympathy. I am afraid that the cement industry has not had a particularly good record. On many occasions, kilns have broken down and people suffer because of the dust particles that are emitted, so I have a great deal of sympathy for them.
Finally, all people who are concerned about the environment must judge whether, if the fuel is not available to the companies that use it in their incinerators, some of the material that is being incinerated might well have to go to landfill sites, which might be far less satisfactory than getting rid of it in incinerators.
There is also the question of emissions from cement kilns. It was difficult for the Select Committee to get an accurate picture. It certainly seemed that nothing like enough monitoring was done during breakdowns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) explained. It appears that, for safety reasons in the plant, trips take place when gas reaches a certain level in the kiln. There is considerable doubt about the effectiveness of combustion at that point.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton implied that the kilns stay very hot for a long time, which is true, but they must stay at the highest temperatures to guarantee that no dioxins are emitted, so some questions remain.
We must also remember that, at the moment, these are only experiments. It is easy to get a specification for the fuel when doing an experiment and using relatively small


quantities, but it is quite another matter in large-scale production to ensure that the wastes are in just the right quantities to guarantee that the material reaches the same standard. That is another important area for concern.
The Select Committee wanted the Minister to say that the fuel would be treated as a waste and that, when burnt in cement kilns, exactly the same standards would apply as if it were being burnt in incinerators. That seemed a fair proposal. It would also have meant that, when the material was transported by road, it would have to be treated according to the highest standards—as a waste—rather than the lower ones required for a fuel.
7.45 pm
I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside can clear up the doubt about how long the material will be treated as waste. He seems to be saying that the Government are happy to classify it as waste to start with, but that as soon as it is to be used as a fuel they will change the classification. It would be to the satisfaction of a large number of people who live close to the kilns if the Government were to make it clear beyond all doubt that the material is to be treated as waste throughout its use in the kilns and that it is to be treated in exactly the same way as it would be if it was burnt in an incinerator.
I know that it is a corny phrase, but that would give us a level playing field. It would be fair to all involved—the big incinerator companies, the cement companies and the people who live close to the plant. It would also be the best way forward for an environmental policy.
I hope that the Minister will either accept new clause 17 or make it clear beyond all doubt that the material is seen as a waste rather than a fuel.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Hon. Members who start by saying that they will make a short speech invariably speak at length, so I will not do that, but just get on with it.
I have made many representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. He was delighted to see me on the train from Preston on Monday and knew exactly what I wanted to talk to him about. Castle Cement in my constituency is burning a substitute fuel, called cemfuel, in its kiln. While I am extremely pleased to have the kiln in my constituency, as it employs a lot of people, if the economics of it had to be weighed against the health of my constituents, I would always go for the latter. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise. That is why I have made representations on the subject to my right hon. Friend.
It would be great if we could reduce the amount of waste that is produced. Incineration is probably one of the most environmentally friendly ways of getting rid of it—it is preferable to landfill or dumping—but it has to be done in the right way.
There is no doubt that when Castle Cement started to burn cemfuel in Clitheroe, it made several mistakes. It did not consult people in the area properly. They were not given the right amount of information. Because of that lack of knowledge, the public were immediately concerned. They did not know what was being done and their questions were not answered properly. They also got very suspicious when they discovered that Castle Cement

was being paid to burn the fuel, as opposed to paying for it in the traditional manner. They had many concerns, therefore.
Some residents living around the cement kiln formed the Residents Against Toxic Substances action group.

Mr. Atkins: That spells rats.

Mr. Evans: Yes, RATS. The group has held two public meetings on the issue in my constituency and both were well attended, which shows the amount of concern felt by members of the public who live around the kiln.
Several people have complained that they have felt ill since the burning of the substitute fuel, cemfuel, began. I am not an expert or a doctor, and although the doctor in the area has been consulted about whether there has been an increase in asthma or other such complaints since the burning of cemfuel started, it is difficult to get any precise answers one way or the other. I am certain that, as doubt exists, some people are so concerned that illness can be caused by the stress of worrying about the burning of the substitute fuel. That problem, too, must be addressed.
That is why I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to ask whether the Select Committee would investigate the burning of secondary fuels in cement kilns. I am delighted to say that he agreed, and my only reservation is that there was only one sitting on the subject, although I am sure that, because of all the representations that were made and all the people who wanted their voices to be heard, there could have been three or four.
Nevertheless, a good report resulted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has read it, so I shall not read out any of its recommendations now. I have already said that I accept its main thrust, and I hope that HMIP will take it on board when it makes its recommendations, which I hope it will do soon.
My right hon. Friend also knows that I have another problem connected with the cement kiln.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that perhaps the greatest reassurance that his constituents could have is the fact that all the evidence submitted to the Select Committee inquiry suggested that there was no significant difference between what came out of the cement kiln when it was burning secondary liquid fuel and when it was burning conventional fuel? Would my hon. Friend's constituents be further reassured if the constituent components of that secondary liquid fuel could be further redefined? Surely what goes in at the beginning determines what comes out at the end.

Mr. Evans: I understand that, because of commercial confidentiality, the composition of the fuel is not made known to the wider public. I know that HMIP will examine the matter. If it was known what constituted the secondary liquid fuel—in this case, cemfuel—I am sure that people would be delighted to know. That would reassure them, so I hope the investigation will be made.

Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: No, my speech is coming to an end. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech.
The plume grounding in Clitheroe is a problem, but it would exist even if cemfuel were not burnt. It must be addressed as a separate issue. Coal, for example, is a dirty fuel, and if the plume were grounding early that, too, would cause its own distinct problems.
May I, through my right hon. Friend, express my thanks to HMIP for the way in which it has treated my constituents' representations? Every time I have asked the inspectorate to come to my constituency, its staff have done so. They have been present at two of the public meetings, and met separately the residents who formed the pressure group. I am grateful for the time that they have given, and I appreciate the pressure to which they are subjected when the residents continually ask questions. I hope that the response is coming through.
A precedent is being established here. People are worried, and ask who is to say what other wastes will go into cement kilns in future if nothing is said about the present problem. We want to be certain that we get it absolutely right this time, so I hope that HMIP will take on board the Select Committee report and the representations that have been made to it by my constituents and by me. I hope that the inspectorate will soon make its own recommendations and that they will reassure not only me but the people who live in Clitheroe.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), especially the latter, because he is my next-door neighbour and the other hon. Member for Ribble. There is a danger that, with the constant mention of rats at the Dispatch Box, I may begin to get a bit of a complex—but I know that this time RATS is an organisation that has addressed itself both to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and to me.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton about Opposition Members. My hon. Friends have been concerned about the issue for a considerable time and have pressed me and come to see me. I have also been to visit the kiln in my hon. Friend's constituency, so I am fully aware of what has been going on.
I want to reassure the House that it can be confident that part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is well able to control pollution from the burning of secondary liquid fuel—SLF—in cement kilns. The Environment Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is Chairman, produced a good, albeit briefly investigated, report on the subject, which I mentioned in Committee and on which I congratulated the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Select Committee. I said that we would act on the recommendations of the report and consider carefully the implications of what it suggested.
Several points have been raised in the debate. Although the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has been told certain facts many times, she continues to reiterate her charges in the face of the reassurances that I offer on behalf of HMIP. Monitoring continues during upsets. The hon. Lady says that it does not, but it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly raised the question of health. The Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are now seeking views on questions related to health and to agriculture—the latter must involve food, I suppose—and HMIP and the Government will take into account anything that might be said there.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked about the definition of waste. It is the view of the Government and of HMIP that SLF is a waste, so the duty of care requirements in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 wil apply to it. As I said, all the Select Committee's recommendations will be carefully considered.
I repeat briefly that the existing legislation allows HMIP to regulate and monitor the SLF trials closely. That is being carried out to HMIP's usual high standards. I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for putting on the record their thanks to the inspectorate not only for its work on the evaluation of the trials but for the way in which it has assisted my hon. Friends' constituents. All the results of the trials will be placed on HMIP's public registers, and I know that the House in general will accept that that body is carrying out its regulatory responsibilities in a highly professional way.
Permanent burning of SLF in cement kilns will not be authorised if there is a net adverse environmental effect. New clause 17 would amend the definition of waste to provide that
waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process".

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister be a little more specific about the precise meaning of "net adverse environmental effect"? Is the situation when secondary liquid fuel is burnt in cement kilns being compared with the situation when the same fuel is burnt in hazardous waste incinerators, or is the Minister instead drawing a comparison between secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns and the solid waste—coal and other fuels—that is also burnt in cement kilns? I am not clear which of the options is being used as a comparison.

Mr. Atkins: I have made it clear on this occasion and on previous occasions, and I shall continue to do so, that HMIP operates trials to standards that would suggest that if something were not at least as, good as what we have now, the trials would be stopped. That is the meaning of the phrase "net adverse environmental effect". If the hon. Lady cannot understand that, there is not much point in pursuing the explanation. I have made it crystal clear many times, and she persists in deliberately misunderstanding. or ignoring what I say. I cannot spell it out any more clearly. Before we are much older we shall be entitled to conclude that the hon. Lady is being mischievous and does not really care about the issue.
HMIP is a renowned international organisation operating to the highest possible standards, regardless of anything other than environmental criteria. For anyone on either side of the House, or outside the House, to suggest that it is not doing the job properly is mischievous, and I will not have it.

Mr. Bennett: Before the Minister gets too excited about this matter, and while he might be right to praise HMIP, will he explain whether it will consider whether some of the components of that secondary fuel could be better used by being recycled as solvents, which could continue to be used by companies that use solvents, rather than bought to bring fuel up to the standard necessary for it to be burnt in kilns?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The economic background is what provoked the cement companies to look into this matter. Equally, however, the


fuel's make-up, how and whether it should be used, and all the other issues, including the fair question the hon. Gentleman asked, must be considered. HMIP will look independently at a wide range of environmental improvements that could follow if it decides that SLF is acceptable or, if not, what should replace it. All those issues will be taken into consideration, which is why the Select Committee report was so important.

8 pm

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Surely all the issues that have been raised on both sides of the House tonight could be addressed if either HMIP or the Minister's Department were to designate the change from burning coal in cement kilns to burning SLF as a "substantial change". That would trigger a full environmental impact assessment of all the issues and the concerns of people who live around the kilns would be addressed because it would all be on the public register. Why does not the Minister take that road and resolve many of the problems that have been presented to him tonight?

Mr. Atkins: There is no great difference across the Floor of the House about the appreciation of the importance of this issue. That is why I said that the Select Committee—an all-party Committee—has done wise work in examining this issue. However, the point which I get slightly aerated about is the implication that HMIP is not doing its job properly.

Mr. Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins: I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman said that, but it has been implied. If I am being obtuse, I may have misunderstood that to be the case. In any case, HMIP carries out its task to the best of its ability, which is a pretty high ability. As a non-scientific person in this regard, I am content to take its advice, as I must as the Minister responsible.
All the considerations that have been discussed across the Floor of the House in this brief debate tonight, with the considerations discussed in Committee, will be considered carefully as a result of what HMIP may decide to do. As the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, and as I have said on other occasions, we do not think that new clause 17 is the way to proceed. In the circumstances, I hope that she will consider withdrawing it.

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for the considered way in which he has replied to the debate, although his remarks contained some implied criticism of some of my hon. Friends. When an hon. Member begins to raise an issue in the House, it often means that it is the first occasion on which that hon. Member, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), has had to do so and it does not mean that she has not been interested in the issue for some time, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested at the opening of his remarks.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton may have an advantage over my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. After all, he owns Harcourt Consultants, which trades as an oil broker and adviser on energy matters. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman declare an interest when he began his speech, but those interests might relate to the secondary liquid fuels that we are discussing.

Mr. Duncan: I assure the hon. Lady and the House that they do not and it is scurrilous of her to suggest that they do.

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. He will know, as I know, of connections between secondary liquid fuels, the oil industry and energy matters and I thought that it was reasonable to ask him to clarify that for the House. We all have access to the Register of Members' Interests, and the matter is important. The hon. Gentleman made some unpleasant remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and it is reasonable that we should redress the balance—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman deserved that.
On the new clause and the Minister's questions to us, what I take most seriously is my understanding that the Minister has an open mind on these matters. That is absolutely essential. The Opposition believe that some of the materials that go into secondary liquid fuels should be more properly recycled. We heard him say that economics drove companies to burn what we consider to be a noxious material.
In the circumstances and in the light of the Minister's remarks tonight—the Opposition will follow through those remarks in due course—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

COAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION TO WATER FROM ABANDONED MINES

'.(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Coal Authority to prevent water from abandoned coal mines by means of the control and/or treatment of such water from causing significant harm or from polluting controlled waters.
(2) "Harm" has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act.
(3) It shall be determined in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection
(4) below as to—

(a) what harm is to be regarded as "significant",
(b) whether the possibility of harm being caused is "significant", and
(c) whether pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.

(4) Any power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under this Part shall only be exercisable after consultation with the appropriate Agency and such other bodies or persons as he may consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.
(5) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under subsection (1) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the guidance shall not be issued until after the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was so laid or, if the draft is laid on different days, the later of the two days.
(6) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be issued, the Secretary of State shall not issue that guidance.
(7) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(8) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance issued by him under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.'.— [Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 9—Review of minewater pollution from abandoned mines—

'.—(1) The Agency shall, from time to time, prepare a report to the Secretary of State on the environmental effects of pollution of controlled waters from an abandoned mine.
(2) In any report under subsection (1) above the Agency shall make a recommendation as to whether subsections 59(1) and 59(2) should be brought into force.
(3) The Agency shall publish any report produced under subsection (1) above.
(4) Not more than three months after publication of a report under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consider whether to exercise his power to specify a date under sections 59(1) and 59(2) above and shall publish his decision.'.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 59, page 80, line 24, after `1999', insert
`or such earlier date as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State'.
Amendment No. 5, in clause 59, page 81, line 14, after `1999', insert
`or such earlier date as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State'.

Ms Ruddock: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the responsibilities of the Coal Authority in relation to polluting minewater are laid down in statute.
Under the privatisation proposals, the Coal Authority acquired some restoration obligations and, arguably, over time we may see some of our beautiful landscapes and areas that have been ravaged by mining activities restored to their proper splendour. Yet no statutory mechanism is in place to deal with an often less obvious and more insidious legacy: polluting minewater emanating from closed mines.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign has won the respect of many hon. Members on both sides of the House for its persistent and imaginative campaigns highlighting the disaster of polluting minewater in its communities. It leads an extremely impressive list of organisations that back the new clause. The scale of the problem is considerable. The serious pollution of 340 km of rivers and streams was reported in 1994 as a result of minewater escapes.
Since nationalisation, almost 1,000 mines have been abandoned. The Coal Authority is the successor body to the National Coal Board and British Coal and, as such, owns all those abandoned mines. Ministers have sought to reassure the Coalfield Communities Campaign and many hon. Members. The noble Lord Strathclyde said that the Government expected the Coal Authority
to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set out by its legal duties in these areas".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 541.]
That is a fine promise and it was quoted again in Committee.

Mr. Atkins: I shall probably quote it again.

Ms Ruddock: It will still be but an opinion. It is not the same as legislation and it has failed to satisfy all those to whom it was addressed.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance. Such guidance could remove any ambiguity about the action which the Government expect of the Coal Authority and could define precisely how the Coal Authority is to go beyond the minimum standards of

environmental responsibility set out by its legal duties. No one knows what the noble Lord Strathclyde's comment means and we shall know no more if the Minister repeats it again tonight, and again and again.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: He will have to do better than that.

Ms Ruddock: Indeed.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: As someone who represents the Taff and Merthyr valleys, which have suffered industrial vandalism with the closure of all our pits, but are seeing the revival of our rivers to good clean water where trout and other life can exist, may I tell my hon. Friend that the passion with which she presents this new clause is very much supported by those Labour Back Benchers who are not willing to accept just promises? I represent a community that has suffered enough from disasters in the mining industry, and we are no longer willing to accept mere assurances; we want legislative certainty.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. As someone who was born and bred in the south Wales valleys, I can pay testimony to everything that he said and to the passion which the people of those valleys and other abandoned coalfield communities feel about the issue.
No one knows what the promises mean. Lest the Minister thinks that I exaggerate, let me give him proof, chapter and verse. Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority, was reported in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle of 26 April as saying:
The Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits".
On 8 May, Albert Schofield, the director of contracts at the Coal Authority, was interviewed on the "Report Back" programme broadcast on BBC Radio Nottingham, when he said that the Bill was not clear in assigning responsibility for minewater pollution from abandoned coal mines to the Coal Authority. We concur; we have made that point again and again to the Minister in Committee—the Bill does not provide for that.
Clarification is absolutely essential. Our new clause provides an opportunity for that. If the Minister is not minded to accept it, I can assure him that behind me, and probably in front of me as well, there are hon. Members who will press him with further questions, because many hon. Members represent mining communities. Those communities have seen pits abandoned and they now live with their legacy. Those local communities want to have a better environment, but they continue to feel great anxiety about the ever-present threat of pollution from minewater. Unless the Government act more decisively, among those communities the suspicion will remain that the Coal Authority cannot be relied upon to continue pumping the mines and to continue to take responsibility for minewater and the pollution that it causes.
I made a much longer speech about this matter in Committee, but I promised to be brief tonight because I am sure that many hon. Members want to make their own speeches. The Minister had better produce some more satisfactory answers than he has done hitherto, or he will suffer a further barrage of questions. Nothing that he has said to date satisfies us or the coalfield communities, which are so oppressed by the problem of minewater pollution.

Mr. Jopling: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock).
I have been aware of the problem of minewater for some time through various correspondence that I have received from various bodies. I can remember years ago, when many hon. Members now in the House were perhaps a twinkle in their mothers' eyes, that I was made aware of the problem when I stood for Parliament in Wakefield in 1959. I do not need to remind hon. Members that I was unsuccessful on that occasion.
I have been particularly struck by the correspondence that I have received in the past few days from the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union—let me declare an interest in that I am a member of both—about the problem.
I am a farmer, but I do not suffer from the problem of minewater on my farm, and, as far as I know, I do not have that problem anywhere in my constituency in the lake district. It is, however, a most important matter and it is vital that the Minister should give us the assurances for which the hon. Lady asked.
I am struck particularly to be told by the Country Landowners Association that it hopes that the Minister will be pressed to give detailed assurances to the House on how the Bill and the guidance will ensure that the costs of remediation required of individuals, while not responsible for contamination, will be contained. I am told that that concern is shared not only by the CLA and the NFU but by the British Property Federation, the Association of British Insurers, Lloyd's of London—I again declare an interest, although I stopped underwriting some time ago—and the Scottish Landowners Federation. I am told that those bodies are keen that there should be a full and positive response from the Minister, which would help to allay the genuine concerns of those who fear that they may discover that their property is on contaminated land.
I know from experience how sympathetic is the Minister to such problems. I wanted to intervene briefly in the debate to press upon him how important it is that we are able to allay those quite understandable fears.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I shall try to be brief. I am in favour of new clauses 8 and 9.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), my constituency, which is an ex-mining one, with an abundance of closed mines, is badly affected by minewater and the consequences of it. The problem is as bad there as it is in any other constituency.
The River Wear runs right through the middle of my city, which as many hon. Members will know, is one of the most beautiful cities in the country. With minewater draining directly into the River Wear, it could become heavily polluted. Those who are familiar with my constituency will know that the River Wear forms a horseshoe around the cathedral and the castle. The thought of a yellow and red scarf of pollution flowing around them is absolutely horrendous. It is one of the most famous beauty spots in the country and that pollution must not be allowed to happen. Only direct action by the Government will ensure that it does not.
I know that the Minister has a great interest in cricket and he might be interested to know that the River Wear also runs right by the new County Durham cricket ground at Chester-le-Street. That section of the river is also in danger of pollution. Can one imagine playing the West Indies in four years' time in a test match at Durham, with the River Wear running red right through Chester-le-Street? That is an appalling thought.
According to the National Rivers Authority, about 200 km of rivers in England and Wales are affected, or could be affected by minewater pollution. The problem of minewater pollution poses a tremendous risk not only to the River Wear but to many farms in my constituency. Last Friday, I visited, at his request, the farm of Mr. Wade at New Brancepeth in my constituency. I saw at first hand the appalling problems his land suffers as a result of minewater. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the huge amounts of water flowing not just off his fields, but underneath them as well. There was literally an underground river flowing right through his land. That land was opencasted many years ago and he has had tremendous drainage problems ever since. He is constantly having to repair drains or add new ones but he cannot stop the water flooding into his fields—and that is with the pumps still going.
He tells me that a few weeks ago—I saw the result—he had a contractor in to put more drains into his fields. A day later, after the contractor had left, the water reappeared 5 yd away from where the new drain had been put in. The fields were sown with corn. Acres of corn have been ruined, not only this year but every year since the land was reclaimed after opencasting.
About 8,000 million gallons of water are pumped each year from the Durham coalfield, where there are no longer any working pits. To be honest, it seemed to me that the whole 8,000 million gallons of water were coming through Mr. Wade's field when I was looking at it. It was unbelievable. It does not matter what Mr. Wade does, the water continues to flow. For the, sake of people in the same position as Mr. Wade, the Government have got to take some action.
To make matters worse for Mr. Wade, and for many of the farmers in my constituency who are in a similar position, they have been tenants of British Coal for many years. Shortly, they are going to have to make a decision about whether to buy their farms. They will be given 28 days to make their minds up and then they will have to make a decision. How can the men and women who have worked those farms for many years as tenants of British Coal suddenly make a decision about whether to buy the land when there are such horrendous problems? Should they take a chance or will they be given some guarantee by the Government tonight that they will at least have their problems considered and be helped?
The new Coal Authority must be made legally responsible for protecting the environment from minewater and for protecting farmers such as Mr. Wade who have to decide whether they should buy their farms. The Coal Authority, which is supposed to be the coal industry regulator, does not have adequate legal responsibility for environmental protection. Under existing legislation, it is envisaged that it will seek where reasonably practical to enhance and to protect the environment. There needs to be a clear duty to protect farmland and water courses against flooding and against pollution from the water that emerges from abandoned mines.
If the new clauses were accepted, the Bill would ensure that the problems were solved. If they are not accepted, there will be the most appalling consequences because the Coal Authority clearly has no intention of taking responsibility for the situation. The Minister may look surprised, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) quoted Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority. In an interview in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle on 26 April he said that the
Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits".
If that is not making a categoric statement, I do not know what is.
The fact is that if the Government do not take responsibility tonight and do not provide us with legislation, the Coal Authority will not take that responsibility. The consequence for farmers and other people who have the pleasure of living in my constituency will be that they are going to be blighted for the rest of time. I plead with the Minister, for goodness sake, to take action to ensure that the Coal Authority takes legal responsibility.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: This issue requires clarity. Many of us have been deeply impressed by the passion and commitment of the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It has spoken with enormous sincerity for its communities and expressed the wish that they should live free from the threat of pollution. That is not easy because abandoned coal mines present us with one of our greatest pollution challenges.
The problem has existed for many years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—who was almost the Member for Wakefield—said, it was an issue way back in 1959. Since then—especially in the 1960s—hundreds of coal mines have been closed, adding to the potential problem. We all recognise that should mines be abandoned willy-nilly and pumping cease, the pollution threat would be extraordinary and unacceptable.
We have to create a framework that recognises the problem and proposes a solution. I think that we all admit that in the long term, we have to find some mechanical, scientific way of resolving the matter but in the meantime we can take precautionary measures that will diminish the threat of pollution.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: In respect of the precautions that the hon. Gentleman was going on to, does he think that pumping should continue? Later on, if the Minister does not accept the new clause, will the hon. Gentleman join us in the Lobby?

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: The hon. Member should listen to what I have to say. Clearly, each mine has to be treated according to its circumstances—he knows that. Each pollution problem must be tackled specifically according to the circumstances.
The problem has existed for 30 years. There has been some action to prevent pollution, but the Coal Authority is now the body that has to carry that burden forward. What we want from the Coal Authority is a clear guarantee that action will be taken. If it is true that the chief executive of the Coal Authority, Neville Washington, said that the Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits, it is unacceptable. It is quite clear that Albert Schofield, the director of contracts for the Coal Authority, is uncertain about what his responsibilities are.
I believe that we need from the Government a clear understanding of what is the responsibility of the Coal Authority and the certainty that it will conduct itself effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, that argument is supported by the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union.
In Committee, I gave the example of a horticultural nursery that had been severely affected when polluted minewater started to interfere with its irrigation. Many local farmers in those areas are anxious that their livestock should have unpolluted water. I do not necessarily agree—perhaps this will help the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell)—that legislation is always a panacea. I believe that instruction, guarantee and guidance can also be effective.
I want to learn from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Coal Authority's uncertainty will not be accepted, that there will be very clear instructions to the Coal Authority, which is the responsible body, and that there will be sufficient funds to enable it to reduce pollution to a minimum and to allow the continuance of research to find a long-term solution to the problem. The whole House and the coalfield communities require a clear statement and guarantee in the Bill that this major pollution threat—one of the greatest pollution threats that the country faces—is being tackled with the certainty and seriousness that is required.

Mr. Tipping: I, too, support and congratulate the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It now has 99 members, and I look forward to it gaining its centenary member fairly soon. I mention especially Barbara Edwards, the deputy director of the campaign, who has tirelessly followed through the demise of British Coal, which was a thankless task. She has brought real commitment to that task, as have a number of local authorities involved in the campaign.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) mentioned the problems in his area where pollution from minewater is a pressing and immediate issue. It is not yet a live issue in Nottinghamshire because, thankfully, we still have a deep coal industry, so pumping will have to continue. However, we could face major pollution problems in 30 years. According to the National Rivers Authority and British Coal, the water discharge will appear not in the countryside but in the middle of Radford and Lenton which, as hon. Members who are familiar with the area will know, are inner-city areas. The consequences will be devastating, but there will be practical difficulties in taking remedial action.
It is important that we have provisions on the statute book to deal with the problems 30 years hence. Ministers gave commitments during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 and of this Bill—in another place and in this House—but, as we have seen from the events of the past few days, things can change, and change quickly. I should like some security for the people who live in the coalfield communities.
There has been talk about the responsibilities of the Coal Authority. Again, assurances were given in another place during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 and the passage of this Bill that the Coal Authority would pick up the mantle and meet all existing obligations.
I went to see Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority, and Albert Schofield, the director of contracts, at the end of last month. My discussion with them was not free and frank. I have to say that the comments made by the chief executive, Mr. Washington, were very guarded. I was dismayed to hear subsequently that my visit to the Coal Authority's headquarters was described as a fishing trip. The authority believed that I was trying to find out what its responsibilities were. Of course I have a clear responsibility to the people and communities I represent to find out what the authority's responsibilities are.
I should point out to the Minister that, during my discussion with him, Mr. Washington made it clear to me that commitments given by Ministers during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 would not now be given by Ministers in similar circumstances—[Interruption.] I said, in similar circumstances. I am therefore concerned and want protection to be written into the Bill.
I am concerned because we are talking about large sums of money. I suspect that the Coal Authority is worried about its budget. We need to remember that trying to clear up the problems at Wheal Jane has cost the NRA something like £7 million in grant aid. I suspect that there are 100 difficult sites where there is a possibility of minewater discharge.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On that very point, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the cost is £7 million so far. There is still no permanent solution, only a pilot project. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the amount involved.

Mr. Tipping: That is a good point. The figure of £100 million has been quoted, although I think that the true figure will be far in excess of that. We should consider capital schemes rather than revenue schemes, but engineering solutions are preferable to capital schemes.
New clause 8 places a duty on the Coal Authority to clear up the problem. New clause 9 approaches the problem from a slightly different angle. It provides for an annual report on, or review of, the problem. It is important that not only Members of Parliament but local authorities and the coalfield communities have a clear idea of what the problem is and what is being done to resolve it so that we can all keep track of what is happening.
We should also consider carefully amendments Nos. 4 and 5. In Committee, I pressed the Minister about the responsibility of the new private owners. Will they, for example, keep up the pumping? Will Coal Investments at Annesley Bentinck in Nottinghamshire continue to pump at a cost of £1.4 million a year? Will R. J. Budge pick up the bill for continued pumping? I suspect that there is a question mark over that, which is why amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are important.
Under the Bill, it will not be a criminal offence to cause minewater discharge until 31 December 1999. The new coal contracts come into operation in 1998, which will be a year of challenge for the coal industry and could well be a year of change. It could be a year in which further pits are closed. That is why it is important that we accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which give the Secretary of State the power to bring the date forward if necessary.
The people of the coalfield communities accept that much of the deep coal industry has been buried. The Government have tried to walk away. Those people now want a better future, a landscape that is lifted and an environment that is enhanced. New clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 give us the opportunity to make it clear where we stand.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not speak for long, because I do not have a direct constituency interest in the coalfields and I know that a number of hon. Members here do. However, I have direct constituency experience of the Wheal Jane tin mine to which reference has been made. In that respect, I think that the Government are being foolish with the long-term finances of this country as well as with the environment.
There is no question but that pollution from abandoned mines can have a dramatic environmental impact. We saw that with Wheal Jane, which hit the headlines, partly because it was colourful to see the pollution flowing out across the Fal estuary and partly because of its serious environmental impact on livelihoods. It also meant that some people had to get water to their homes by tanker, whereas they had relied on natural water supplies. In the long run, it has been notable for the enormous costs involved. Some £7 million has already been spent, but much more is needed to find a solution.
When I visited the pilot project recently, it appeared that the reed bed solution might not succeed or be cost-effective, and that we might have to return to long-term chemical treatment of the effluent and long-term pumping to manage that process. That could extend to having to build up the mica dam, at considerable expense. It might ultimately mean a new dam area as the original area fills up. The costs are potentially huge.
Had pumping continued from the word go, it would not have provided a solution, but it would have managed the situation, and would certainly have reduced the early costs and the pollution. In other words, it would have been cheaper for the Government. Cheapest of all would have been to allow the investment programme in the mine to go ahead, thereby keeping the jobs. That, however, is another story.
I urge the Minister to consider whether it is not short-sighted and foolhardy to put back the date of action on the financial and environmental consequences that have been highlighted extremely well by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It has done an extraordinarily good job in bringing the matter to the attention of Ministers and of the wider public and I hope that an effective solution will be found.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I ask the Minister to accept the new clauses and amendments, for four reasons. First, the Government's responses in Committee—I suspect that they will be the same today, although we have yet to hear from the Minister—have failed to recognise the scale of the problem. Every day, 440,000 gallons of polluted water flow into the rivers and water courses in Yorkshire alone. It affects virtually every water course in south Yorkshire, and certainly most in my constituency.
Secondly, the Coal Authority's responsibility is crucial. People in mining areas know that every pit is linked with every other pit. Minewater that gathers in one place may surface in another. At the end of the day, the Coal Authority has responsibility for dealing with that problem.
Thirdly, minewater pollution is not a new problem, but it is likely to accelerate very quickly because of the level of pit closures. The problem at Sheephouse Wood in my constituency originates from a pit closure in the latter part of the 19th century, but the polluted water is there now.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. Fourthly, it is not simply a matter of clarity; it is also a matter of resources. We must recognise that the emission of polluted water, which kills fish and every other living creature in the water courses, can be resolved by proper investment. The Government must decide now—not in 1999—how the Coal Authority and the new Environment Agency will have the resources to deal with that problem in our mining areas, which threatens the wildlife and the livelihood of the local people.
I ask the Minister to take on board the views of the National Rivers Authority in the Northumbria and Yorkshire region about resources. It made it clear to me in a letter that the moneys it required to undertake pilot studies to treat the polluted water
have not been specifically allocated by DoE and consequently have to be squeezed out of normal operating costs. We would prefer to see a specific allocation of funds on top of our normal budget to take account of the minewater problems.
I invite the Minister to confirm today that next year the Department of the Environment will make a specific budget allocation to the Environment Agency for minewater pollution. I invite him to make that commitment, as it will go some way toward alleviating the fears of many hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I rise to speak in favour of new clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5. New clause 8 is particularly important, because it identifies the responsible authority and puts a duty on that authority. That is extremely important, because, as the Minister is aware, we were given certain assurances about the Coal Authority's responsibilities when the Coal Industry Bill passed through Parliament. Many of those assurances have not materialised.
My constituency is a former mining region with a history of two to three centuries of mining. Many old mine shafts have been kept dry by the pumping operations conducted by British Coal when it operated collieries in my constituency. Since the end of the pumping operations at Dodworth, Woolley and Barrow collieries, for example, my constituency has experienced considerable problems.
8.45 pm
Four rivers—the Dearn, the Don, the Little Don and the Dove—run through my constituency, and all of them, especially the three primary rivers, are badly polluted with minewater. Minewater pollution in my constituency has been around for many years, but not in the same volume as we have experienced in recent years. When pumping stopped at Dodworth in 1989, all the mine shafts along the Silkstone valley began to fill up and to weep.
The beck that meanders from Silkstone to Barugh to join the Dearn is now so polluted that nurseries along the river—particularly the nursery at Silkstone—can no longer use the water for irrigation. Farmers along the beck have fenced off the banks, so that their cattle cannot drink the polluted water.
At Worsborough, the reservoir—which is used for leisure pursuits and is particularly popular with anglers—is almost impossible to use in the summer time. Last year, the water authority was forced to fit aeration equipment in order to put oxygen into the water and keep the fish alive. Problems on the west side of my constituency relate to older mines. We must learn from the experience of what has happened with those older mines and include provisions in the Bill to deal with the problems.
In 1964, Bull House colliery on the west side of my constituency closed. Following its closure, the ochre water from that mine polluted the River Don, which is now an orange colour for six miles down the river from the point of entry of the Bull House water, past Penistone and towards Barnsley. Sheephouse mine, an old mine in the west of my constituency, closed in 1898, but we still have an enormous problem with minewater. Water drains from Sheephouse and flows under the road at Stocksbridge and into the Little Don. The drainage system has operated for almost 100 years, and each day it must be swept in order to stop the ochre deposits from collecting and causing the road to flood.
Minewater is clearly an enormous problem, which requires legislative action. The assurances that we were given during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill have not materialised. Having said that, I pay tribute to the Coal Authority so far as its endeavours at Woolley are concerned. Woolley colliery is at the core of a project joining eight or nine other collieries.
The tremendous build-up of water pressure at Woolley colliery has resulted in a break-out of water that has severely polluted the Dearn. The National Rivers Authority helped to put pressure on the Coal Authority, which has now decided that it will spend £360,000 to develop a reed bed filtration process on the banks of the Dearn.
In my constituency, there are at least another six places where water courses are badly polluted. We require moneys to be spent by the responsible authority to clean up those waterways. It is essential, therefore, that the new clause is accepted.

Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend mentioned Worsborough reservoir, which is in his constituency. It would be appropriate for him to give another dimension to the debate by saying that the Worsborough reservoir is fished by the Barnsley angling team, which makes up the bulk of the country's international angling team. The team is represented abroad, it fishes throughout Europe, and the majority of its members, including its captain, are based in Barnsley.
The team fishes in the Worsborough reservoir and invites international competitors to that reservoir. Unfortunately, as a result of the problem of minewater pollution, that reservoir was no longer usable, until the installation of the aeration equipment referred to by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will add that dimension to the debate.

Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting my memory. The position at Worsborough is the reverse of the position that we normally meet. The problem has been caused as a result of pumping being stopped and the reservoir not having the added volume of water. That has helped to create circumstances in which, in hot weather, algae develops in the reservoir and the fish cannot breathe. Consequently, aeration equipment is needed.
The Minister must he aware that the country has enjoyed the great wealth that was extracted from the ground, and it is unfair that mining communities and former mining communities are to be left to pick up the tab. If the Minister would assure us that he is prepared to accept those new clauses, especially new clause 8, it would give a great deal of satisfaction to the Opposition and to many Conservative Members.

Mr. George Stevenson: I shall make three brief arguments in support of the new clauses.
First, I too represent a region that has had a mine tradition for many years and has suffered from industrial pollution and damage as a result of mining activity. Were it not for clear legislation, a district such as the Potteries would not have the clean air that it has today. The position regarding minewater is similar.
My constituents, who have witnessed their collieries closing, especially in the past few years, leaving a small fraction of the mines that used to exist, are extremely worried that the transition from British Coal to the Coal Authority leaves them vulnerable to further pollution as a result of the inability or refusal of the Coal Authority to tackle the potential pollution and damage from water from abandoned mines.
My first argument to the Minister is that I know that it is difficult to strike a balance between the Coal Authority and people but, in my opinion, we have got that balance wrong. It is far too much in favour of the authorities. It was far too much in favour of British Coal, and continues to be far too much in favour of the Coal Authority.
Secondly, it simply is not good enough for the Minister, in resisting those new clauses, to give us assurances about the Coal Authority giving undertakings about its attitude to that important issue. We have only to consider the record—there is a good example in my constituency—of what happens when there are gaps or ambiguity in the legislation that places responsibility on the Coal Authority/British Coal.
We have many abandoned mine shafts in my constituency. Some are very small. They go back a long time, but they are the responsibility of the Coal Authority. As the present legislation refers to the Coal Authority having responsibility only if those abandoned mines cause damage, when the Coal Authority has been challenged it has walked away. It has said that, as no apparent damage is being caused to land and property, it has no responsibility. However, I can tell the Minister that hundreds of homes in my constituency are blighted as a result of the discovery of those mine shafts.
Although pollution of rivers and streams from abandoned mines, which affects people's property, may not damage that property physically, it will blight that property, that district and that land. If the Minister suggests that the present legislation be carried forward and those responsibilities placed on the Coal Authority, unless actual physical damage is done to land and property, the Coal Authority will deny responsibility and fight every case tooth and nail, as it is fighting that other issue in my constituency. We do not have to wait for the film: we can read the book. The evidence is there for the Minister to see.
My last argument is as follows. The experience in my constituency, and the constituencies of hon. Friends throughout the country, shows that we must not allow ambiguity to determine our decisions. We must not allow gaps to continue in the legislation. We must seek to place a clear responsibility on the Coal Authority for that extremely important issue. That is why new clause 8 is especially important. I can guarantee the Minister that, unless there is a clear responsibility, the Coal Authority will fight tooth and nail to avoid any responsibility unless it is placed on the statute book.

Mr. Atkins: I have been impressed by the quality of the debate. I know, as does any Member of the House, when people speak for effect and when they speak from the heart. I understand that hon. Members with mining constituencies feel strongly about that issue. I assure them that I and other Ministers and Conservative Members—as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle)—feel just as strongly, and have the same worries.
I have also been impressed on several occasions by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. The Opposition Chief Whip, the name of whose constituency temporarily escapes me—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Bishop Auckland."] Bishop Auckland, of course. I should know, I have been there. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has several times made representations to me, by way of inveigling me into accompanying him to Durham county cricket club, which he and I together, in another capacity, sought to get into the county cricket championship. Therefore, I understand and appreciate the anxieties especially of Durham, but also of other places, such as Nottingham.
There is a clear agenda behind the new clause, so I must address it at the outset. As to coal mines, it is proposed that the public purse, in the shape of the Coal Authority, should be under a duty to prevent minewater causing pollution. I cannot forbear from mentioning the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) demanding—albeit not from the Opposition Front Bench—the commitment that more money be spent. Is that another commitment on top of all those already made by Labour, and has it been cleared?

Mrs. Helen Jackson: rose—

9 pm

Mr. Atkins: I will not give way, because I want to proceed, but that point should be considered in the context of this debate.
It will not come as a surprise that the Government do not accept the potentially sweeping proposition that they should be under a duty to prevent minewater causing pollution. I recognise that that would have great attractions for parties actually or potentially affected by an abandoned coal mine, but we do not believe that it would be a responsible use of public funds.

Ms Ruddock: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make progress, but this is an important point. He suggested that he is concerned about the public purse. What other purses are available to the Government to deal with the problem of abandoned mines, where pumping is required?

Mr. Atkins: Later, I will be reiterating commitments already made. The Coal Authority has the necessary


resources to meet what is required. I was merely posing a question to the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who was demanding more money on top of other demands for money.

Mrs. Jackson: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I will not give way. Let us try to make progress with the facts; then the hon. Lady can respond. I am conscious of time, and I understand that Opposition Members are keen to hear my response to their genuine concerns.
New clause 8 would place an absolute duty on the Coal Authority to prevent water from abandoned coal mines polluting controlled waters or causing significant harm, irrespective of how long ago they were abandoned. That duty would be more onerous than the regulation applied to all other types of discharge.
Such an absolute duty would also be impossible to meet in practice. The Coal Authority would be under a duty to prevent all pollution from all minewaters discharging from all abandoned coal mines, irrespective of the seriousness of the water pollution. Such a duty would also apply in respect of coal mines that were abandoned before nationalisation. There would be no practical way for the Coal Authority to comply for all such mines at the same time, as is required in the amendment.
As to new clause 9 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5, the provisions of clause 59 have been carefully considered—in particular, the effective date for the removal of the existing, long-standing defence and exemption that apply to polluting discharges from abandoned mines that a person permits to enter controlled waters. The Government have repeatedly argued that the removal of those protections is necessary, but must be carefully handled to avoid potentially serious consequences.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, together with new clause 9, would simply allow the Secretary of State, on the advice of the agency, to specify any earlier date for the removal of the defence and the exemption. As the amendments are worded, there is no limit to how far back the change could reach—in theory, we could imagine mines abandoned 30 or even 100 years ago suddenly coming under the agency's regulation.

Mr. William O'Brien: I want to impress on the Minister the significance of old mine workings. In my constituency, because an old mine shaft was on charter, 13 miners lost their lives in the Lofthouse disaster. Does the Minister accept that auditing old mines and old mine workings under the Bill is important to avoid such a disaster occurring again?

Mr. Atkins: Of course I understand the importance of such an incident. I made it clear in Committee, and I do so again, that any such incident must be investigated, and that the conclusions drawn from such an accident must influence future policy. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that regard.
We all accept that minewater pollution is a long-standing and difficult problem. In this Bill, the Government have for the first time proposed a considered approach that will allow the agency to address the issue. It is simply not practicable to solve the problem at a stroke, as hon. Members imply.
The Government of course recognised the real and acute concerns about the continuation of British Coal pollution containment measures. I do not want to delay

the House, but my noble Friend Lord Ullswater made a specific commitment in the other place, which has been met to date and will continue to be met in relation to British Coal, that is worth putting on record.
The Government made it clear during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 that we would not expect the Coal Authority, when it assumed its responsibilities, to limit itself to the minimum standards of environmental responsibility that were set by its legal duties in respect of water pollution. We would expect the authority to seek the best environmental result that could be secured from the use of the resources available to it for those purposes. When the authority was in due course established, it accepted that task.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred to Neville Washington, so I refer to a statement issued by Durham county council in the name of Councillor Len James, chairman of its environment committee.

Ms Ruddock: indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, but the statement is also dated 20 April. It states:
Sir David White, chairman of the …Coal Authority"—
in the company of Mr. Neville Washington—
told members of Durham County Council that pumping would continue until an environmentally acceptable alternative is found.
As a result of the meeting, Councillor James said:
We were pleased to hear that the Coal Authority has made provision to ensure that adequate pumping cover is maintained and is drawing up a costed programme of action in priority areas. In all, it was a very productive meeting which has reassured us that some of the pressing issues which the County Council has long been campaigning to be resolved will be treated seriously and in a spirit of co-operation.
It is specific. Councillor James has said—

Ms Ruddock: The Minister does not help the House by quoting a press release yet again. He quoted it in Committee, and I had to tell him-L—I tell him again—that it was a proper courtesy for Durham county council to issue such a statement. It was a useful meeting, and the council was satisfied on some counts.
I can assure the Minister, as I have done in the past, that I have received a letter from Durham county council in which it raises many of the questions that he is now failing to answer. The council may have had some confidence, but there is clearly a great deal of confusion now. We have quoted to the Minister remarks from the chief executive of the Coal Authority to the effect that it, the authority, does not have responsibility.
Why should the county council feel thoroughly satisfied? That is not its feeling today, and I fear that it will not be in future. The Minister is failing to tell the House how, in the light of the Bill, the Coal Authority will have responsibility in future.

Mr. Atkins: I understand that the hon. Lady feels strongly about these matters. A perfectly legitimate response by a courteous county council seems to conflict with what she is saying. I assure her that I shall check with the Coal Authority to ascertain what the chief executive has said. As I have said, I have sought to do so. As I have also said, the dates appear to be the same, and there appears to be a conflict of information. That is something that I cannot resolve now. I shall return to the issue in due course.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I am conscious of the time and—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am being told to get on with it, but I am trying to respond to an important debate in which some hon. Members have spoken at length. I resent suggestions that I should get on with it when I am trying to answer questions.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: No, I will not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) asked me specific questions, and I must give him the assurances that he seeks. Liability is changing only under the abandoned mines provisions for the owners and operators of mines abandoned after the end of 1999. They are liable for mines abandoned before then only if they cause pollution. Farmers and other landowners in the area with no connection with the operation of the mine cannot be liable for causing pollution. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend.
I am conscious that Members wish to move on and make progress. I have tried to spell out the situation, but I have not been able to do so as well as I would wish, because of lack of time. I want to emphasise that we, the Government, care just as deeply about these issues as do the Opposition. We have stated in another place—we have been supported by the money that has already been spent—our commitment to future pumping, and continuing it for as long as is necessary.
I repeat that it is unnecessary to add the new clause to the Bill. I ask the House to reject it.

Ms Ruddock: I shall not detain the House. I expect that the Minister will be writing to me to clarify the statement of the chief executive of the Coal Authority, when he said, in effect, that the authority would not be responsible for water that emerged from pits.

Mr. Steinberg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Ruddock: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Steinberg: To take up the point on which the Minister would not give way, he said that Councillor Lennie James, whom I know personally as an honourable man, made a press statement on 20 April. He apparently left the meeting on the understanding that the Coal Authority would take responsibility. On 26 April, Neville Washington issued his response to the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, in which he said that the Coal Authority was not responsible for water emerging from pits. It seems that Councillor Lennie James may have been misled by what was said at the meeting. It is disgraceful that the Minister should seek to draw comparisons.

Ms Ruddock: My hon. Friend has provided the House with extremely useful information, which will be read by many hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister will need to take account of my hon. Friend's intervention when he writes on the subject.
There can be no doubt that the Minister has yet again failed to give any satisfaction to those who took part in the Coalfield Communities Campaign for a better deal for the protection of their environment, and for assurances for the future that responsibility will be taken for this terrible legacy. I have no doubt that the House needs to divide on this issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 268.

Division No. 179]
[9.10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Flynn, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Allen, Graham
Foster, Don (Bath)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry
Galbraith, Sam


Barron, Kevin
Galloway, George


Battle, John
Gapes, Mike


Bayley, Hugh
Garrett, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gerrard, Neil


Beggs, Roy
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bell, Stuart
Godsiff, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, Andrew F
Gordon, Mildred


Benton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Berry, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Betts, Clive
Grocott, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gunnell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hain, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hanson, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Heppell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chidgey, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Church, Judith
Hoyle, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands WVIO
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Khabra, Piara S


Dafis, Cynog
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Denham, John
Livingstone, Ken


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Donohoe, Brian H
Loyden, Eddie


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mackinlay, Andrew






McLeish, Henry
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McMaster, Gordon
Rooker, Jeff


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terry


MacShane, Denis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maddock, Diana
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mahon, Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meale, Alan
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mctyneaux, Rt Hon James
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watson, Mike


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Andrew


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Winnick, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Audrey


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wright, Dr Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Rendel, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mr. Stephen Byers and


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Ms Estelle Morris.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Booth, Hartley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butcher, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butler, Peter





Butterfill, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow, W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Congdon, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Dicks, Terry
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan, Alan
Legg, Barry


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Leigh, Edward


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lidington, David


Elletson, Harold
Lightbown, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad.Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Sweeney, Walter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sykes, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trotter, Neville


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walden, George


Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. David Willetts and


Sumberg, David
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 10

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA

'. It shall be the duty of the Agency in the exercise of any of its functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 12—Restoration orders for areas of specific scientific interest (No. 2)—
'.—In section 31 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for subsection (1) substitute—
(1) Where—

(a) the operation in respect of which an owner or occupier of land is convicted of a second offence within five years under section 28;
(b) the operation in respect of which a person is convicted of a second offence under section 29; or
(c) the behaviour in respect of which a person is convicted of a second offence under any byelaw made under section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as it applies by virtue of any enactment)


has destroyed or damaged any of the geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land on which it was carried out was of special interest, the court by which he is convicted, in addition to dealing with him in any other way, may make an order requiring him to carry out, within such period as may be specified in the order, such operations for the purpose of restoring the land to its former condition as may be so specified.".'.

Mr. Morley: New clause 10 deals with the functions of the new agency in complying with the European Union habitats directive and would write the duty to comply into the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that the Government accept their responsibilities and duties under international treaties and obligations such as the European habitats directive. The new clause would consolidate all the general duties that the various components of the new agency currently have under the Conservation (Natural Habitat etc.) Regulations 1994.
At present, the agency will have some functions operating under different general duties, according to whether they apply to land or tidal waters. Compliance with the requirements of the habitats directive will apply consistent standards of nature conservation above and below the high tide mark, applying both to special protection areas and to special areas of conservation. In that sense, the new clause will help the new agency to meet its duties.
New clause 12 deals with the protection and restoration of sites of special scientific interest and areas of special scientific interest. SSSIs were introduced under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Sadly, however, the operation of the Act has been flawed in certain areas and there have been difficulties in protecting SSSIs. The report by Wildlife and Countryside Link, "SSSIs—A Health Check", showed that 200 to 300 SSSIs were destroyed or damaged every year. Here I should declare an interest as a vice-president of Wildlife and Countryside Link. A more recent report, the 1994 National Audit Office report "Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest", showed that more than 800 SSSIs had been damaged since 1987.
In this respect, the low fines available to magistrates are a problem in deterring people from damage. The National Audit Office noted that despite more than 800 sites being reported as damaged, only nine prosecutions under section 28 of the 1981 Act had been brought. In many ways, I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulties of the various countryside agencies in implementing section 28 of the 1981 Act. It can be expensive to bring to court someone who has damaged a site of special scientific interest. It must be galling for the agencies to incur that expense and then to see the people concerned getting off with low and derisory fines.
Most damage done to SSSIs is linked to planning applications and to perceived planning gain. The restoration of those sites, for which new clause 12 calls, is fair and a much more effective deterrent. Some owners of sites have deliberately damaged them because they think that it is in their interests to do so; there have been many such cases. I can recall cases of landowners spraying important meadows with herbicides to kill the plants of particular interest in them, hoping that it would make it easier to get planning permission for the site.
Ensuring that such people had to reinstate sites of special scientific interest would make them think twice about damaging them. Such a requirement would be more


effective than the present level of fines. New clause 12 has widespread support from all conservation bodies and, indeed, from English Nature which would welcome this more effective power. I very much hope that the Minister will support the new clauses because they will give the agency a strength that it currently lacks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We believe that the new clause is unnecessary because regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitat etc.) Regulations already places obligations on the proposed agency and on other similar public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the EC habitats directive in the exercise of any of their functions. Hon. Members had the opportunity to debate the regulations in July last year. In addition, any specific duties placed on the National Rivers Authority by the habitat regulations will automatically become duties of the Environment Agency as a result of the transitional provisions in paragraph 218 of schedule 22.
As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) would expect, I have considerable sympathy with the intentions behind new clause 12. As my letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, we have put some flesh on the bones of that sympathy. New clause 12, however, would restrict the existing powers of the courts under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will agree, that is not acceptable. New clause 12 would enable the court to make a restoration order only when a person had been convicted of a second offence under section 29. At present, a restoration order is possible in relation to a first offence.
Under new clause 12, restoration orders would be available only where the geological or physiographical features of the land were destroyed or damaged, with no equivalent provision for the flora and fauna. I hope that with that understanding and in view of the intentions that I have already set out in my letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will feel that he can seek leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Morley: I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the importance of the subject and sympathises with our intention. It is a little strange that the Government are prepared to include on the face of the Bill subjects which could have been included in guidance, such as costs and benefits, but not such matters as the protection of SSSIs.
However, as the Minister has given certain assurances and recognises the thrust of our arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

FOOTPATHS IN NATIONAL PARKS

'.—(1) Each National Park shall include in their annual report for each year after 1995 a list of all footpaths and bridleways which—

(i) are obstructed within their area, and
(ii) are not correctly sign-posted.

(2) The annual report shall also contain details of footpaths of which the legal status is currently under dispute, and of the progress of any discussions being held with the relevant highway authority in attempts to settle any such disputes.'.—[Mr. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should make it clear to the House that I am a member of the Ramblers Association, and I suspect that the association would support the views that I am expressing on this occasion. We ought to recognise that footpaths and rights of way are a historic record. In many parts of the country, they are the best way to identify how people used to live, and how they moved about the countryside and carried out their activities.
Footpaths are also an important part of many people's daily lives. Footpaths are often used by individuals going to work, the shops, church or chapel, or to visit friends. It is important to remember that rights of way and footpaths are an important part of everyday life. They are also important for people who go to the countryside for recreation. Sadly, footpaths are often neglected and, in some cases, obstructed, and obstructions are sometimes caused not by neglect but by deliberate action.
The law requires that the landowner should keep all footpaths clear of obstructions and that the local authority should sign the footpath where it leaves the metal road. I welcome the fact that the Countryside Commission set targets for ensuring that those two requirements were achieved. The targets were the end of this year for all footpaths within national parks and the year 2000 for the rest of the network of footpaths. I am delighted that the Government have endorsed those targets, and in many cases they will be met.
The new clause deals particularly with what happens in national parks. Seven of the national parks have agreed with the highway authority—the local authority in the area—that the park should be the agent for the right of way and footpath network. In other parks, however, the highway authority continues to carry out that activity. We argued in Committee that it would be more sensible for the responsibility in the national parks to be handed over to the national parks themselves. Sadly, the Government resisted, and the new clause is an attempt to get back to the issue.
I hope to hear the Minister say that he believes that it would be to the benefit of the national parks and those who use footpaths if the agency agreement were to be worked out in all national parks—particularly in view of the extra powers that they will have—so that all rights of way will be clear of obstructions and will be properly signed by the end of this year.
The last part of the new clause deals with a rather difficult matter. There are one or two rights of way whose legal status is still somewhat blurred, and the authority in the national park will have a duty to get those legal issues sorted out as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can confirm the Countryside Commission's target and that the Government are keen to see that target achieved throughout the country, but particularly within national parks. I hope that the Minister will also agree that it would be sensible for national parks to take over the right of way provision.

Mr. Atkins: While I understand the intention underlying new clause 13, it is not one with which we can agree. We have endorsed the target set by the Countryside Commission in 1987, in that all rights of way should be


legally defined, properly maintained and well publicised, by 1995 in the national parks and by 2000 in the wider countryside.
The response to that target has been extremely positive. Much has been achieved by the national park boards and committees working in co-operation with the relevant highway authorities. In this year's functional strategies, the English parks have reported that 90 per cent. of the network in the parks is already in an acceptable condition. Work on defining the network has been less satisfactory; nevertheless, progress has been and will continue to be made. I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will provoke the parks even further.
We accept the importance of reporting on all aspects of the stewardship of the parks in the national park authorities' annual reports. I see no reason, however, for departing from the general principle that the precise contents of local authority reports are not a matter for primary legislation. We already made it clear in the draft circular published in January that we expect the new authorities to include in their reports information on their stewardship of the parks, with particular reference to matters of interest to their constituent local authorities. As well as information on more general issues of importance to those local authorities, we would expect the reports to include information on their co-operation in giving effect to the duty to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities, and on their partnerships on rights of way.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman may feel constrained to seek leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Bennett: I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not give a little more encouragement to those national parks and local authorities which have not entered into agreements to carry out the footpath provision to get on and do so. As we want to spend time debating rather than going through the Lobby, and in view of some of the Minister's message, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14

EXTENSION OF NATIONAL PARKS TO SCOTLAND (No. 1)

'. The Secretary of State for Scotland shall, within one year of this Act coming into force, make provision for the extension to Scotland of Parts I, II, V and VI of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.'.[Mrs. Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mrs. Fyfe.]

Mr. John McFall: I shall be brief because the Minister is aware of the concern of the Opposition and the public in Scotland about national parks. My colleague the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned national parks, but, sadly, we do not have any in Scotland, despite the fact that a number of Secretaries of State for the Environment have referred to those in England and Wales as the jewel in the crown.
When we are in government, we shall establish a national park in Scotland. That is in the Labour party's manifesto, and we shall commence with Loch Lomond. We shall do so not merely because that is our view, but because we have consulted widely with the public in Scotland, who want national park status for the Loch Lomond area as a first step.
We have been trying for national park status since 1946, when the Government set up an inquiry to consider national parks in Scotland. Here we are 50 years later and nothing else has happened. The Government asked their body, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, to consider the mountain areas of Scotland and it reported in the late 1980s with the unambiguous view that national parks should be initiated in Scotland. The Government rejected that view.
Since then, the Government have prevaricated to the extent that they set up the Hutchison committee to consider Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. Hutchison did not have the remit to ask for national parks but, within his tight remit, it was obvious that he was looking for a more global solution to the problem of the management of that area.
The Government's response to the Hutchison committee report was disappointing. The day after publication, the headline in The Herald read, "Trumpet of disbelief for the voluntary solution". The voluntary aspect is at the core of the issue. Very little is happening as a result of the Government's stricture that everything is voluntary.
Conservationists and environmentalists are telling us that there has been a deterioration in the Loch Lomond area and that we must have an adequate mechanism for managing it not in five or 10 years' time, but now.
The Countryside Commission's report, "The Mountain Areas of Scotland", stated that it would take £2 million for the Loch Lomond area to be granted national park status. I do not think that that is a big sum. I say that confidently, because when the Minister went to the launch of the Hutchison committee report in Drymen, the words came out of his mouth, "This could be £1 million," and apparently he did not think that that amounted to much financially. If £1 million is not very much, £2 million for the proper management and planning structure for Loch Lomond is not very much either.
I have already mentioned the voluntary principle. The Minister knows that we have been trying for years to have byelaws introduced in the Loch Lomond area. The idea has been taken up by the Loch Lomond park authority, and the byelaws have been suggested for three reasons, the first of which is that they would enhance public safety. The Minister knows that two years ago there was a fatal accident on Loch Lomond, and that the need to enhance public safety is paramount.
The second reason for the byelaws would be to reduce disturbance to especially valuable and vulnerable wildlife interests—the Minister knows our obligations under European Community directives in that respect. The third reason would be to reduce disturbance to local residents, especially those living permanently in the area. My postbag contains regular communications from people on the loch complaining to me about the disturbances. The quality of life in that area is most important, yet it is degenerating because of the Government's intransigence and inaction.
The byelaw proposals have had the strong support of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party under Sir Peter Hutchison, of the sheriff principal of North Strathclyde, Sheriff Hay, when he examined the report of the fatal accident inquiry in 1994, and of the procurator fiscal service.
Despite that, the Loch Lomond park authority now finds that objections have been made and a delay requested by the Scottish Sports Council. I shall not go into detail about the altercation between the Scottish Sports Council and the Loch Lomond park authority, save to say that the byelaws have been under consideration for years, yet there are now further delays because of the objections that have been raised.
Will the Minister ask the Scottish Sports Council whether the objections are genuine? If they are, can the Sports Council get together with the park authority so that the byelaws can be introduced as quickly as possible, for the sake of public safety, if for no other reason?
Following confirmation in March 1995 of Scottish Office and Scottish Natural Heritage agency funding of £345,000 over three years, the Loch Lomond park authority has recruited a small team of loch rangers, the patrol boat is due this week and the power boat registration scheme is ready to go. The authority will be able to print the byelaws and the accompanying advisory material as soon as notice of confirmation is received. But the Scottish Sports Council has caused a delay. In the interest of public safety, will the Minister contact that body and ensure that there is no further delay?
The delay has been caused by prevarication, and is due to the fundamental voluntary principle that the Government insist on preserving in relation to Loch Lomond. That is getting us nowhere fast.
For the Opposition, this is a long-standing issue, and the plan has massive public support. In September I shall call another meeting to consider progress on Loch Lomond. I shall write to the Minister and ask him to address that meeting and to consider in a positive and constructive way the planning for a way forward for the loch. If he cannot do that, can the Scottish Natural Heritage agency send a representative in connection with an environmental audit and financial planning for Loch Lomond? The situation is extremely urgent, and a management plan is needed.
Sadly, we do not have that today, but the new clause would meet the need completely. If there is to be a negative response from the Government now, please may we have a constructive approach to a management set-up for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area? By agreeing to the request in the new clause for a national park, we would indeed be looking after the jewels in Scotland's environmental crown.

Mr. Galbraith: We debated these matters extensively in Committee, and the Bill greatly strengthens the powers and functions of national parks in England and Wales, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House. The Government have been complimented on the changes that they have made.
None the less, Scotland still has no national parks. Although two committees set up to look into that matter produced two reports—the Balfour report for England

and Wales and the Ramsay report for Scotland in 1945—the recommendations of the report for England and Wales were implemented, but those for Scotland were not, partly because there was less pressure from Scotland, where the areas concerned are much more vast. In 1952, the Scottish Health Department, which was responsible for that matter, introduced plans for national parks but, again, they fell by the wayside.
In 1970, the Scottish Select Committee asked that plans be brought forward for national parks but those, too, fell by the wayside. In 1988, however, the Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), asked the Countryside Commission to introduce plans to manage Scotland's mountainous areas. That resulted in the Countryside Commission's 1990 report on Scottish mountain areas, which proposed national parks for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis, Glencoe, the Black Mount and probably Wester Ross. It said nothing about Knoydart, probably because nobody knows where it is. As we do not want people to know where it is, we do not want it to be made into a national park. Perhaps Skye should have been included. Wester Ross probably does not need a national park at this stage, but other areas clearly do and the most pressing of those are Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms, which the Government should deal with.
The plans were not the standard plans proposed for England and Wales, but were to be based on an amalgam of local communities and conservationists, to try to get rid of that conflict. The areas were also to be organised differently. There was to be a core mountain zone, which would be protected from any development and used only for recreation; a countryside management zone, where recreation could be developed close to the roadside; and a community zone, where visitors would be housed. Those useful plans were put out to consultation and agreed by everyone apart from the Government who, once again, introduced the voluntary principle, which has punched huge roads through Glen Feshie.
Even the Government's organisation, Scottish Natural Heritage, no longer believes in the voluntary principle. Point 38 on page 9 of its corporate plan states:
The financial consequences of the voluntary principle are substantial and increasing … if it is sustained, it seems likely that it will become increasingly unaffordable, and an alternative approach may have to be sought.
Thus Scottish Natural Heritage is telling the Government that their voluntary principle is unsustainable and must be dropped.
In response to a plan for the Cairngorms, in 1992 the Government introduced a world heritage site idea. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened about that. Have the Government applied for that designation yet? If not, why not? A joint board was set up for the Cairngorms, which was a step forward. I recognised in Committee that that was an improvement. People were on that board who never expected to be on it and it was a fine victory for conservation. The problem is that the board had no powers.
Loch Lomond is the area that is under the most pressure and once again the Government propose a joint


committee, which no one, not even Scottish Natural Heritage, wants. Its response to the report of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party states:
SNH appreciates the effort the Park Authority and its staff have made, and it continues to support it in its work. However, we recognise the constraints under which it has acted, and the very real problems it continues to face in trying to achieve the ideal of geographically and functionally integrated management within the present system … The failure to achieve a satisfactory level of integration is an indication that the present system"—
which the Government are imposing—
is inadequate to meet the needs of Loch Lomond.
The Joint Committee … would depend on the voluntary delegation of powers and functions by the Local Authorities involved. We are concerned that, on present indications, this may not materialise".
That is the response of SNH, the Government's own body. We might like to ask whether SNH approves of national parks. It is often rumoured that its chairman, Magnus Magnusson, approves of them, although he is not on record as saying so. It might be helpful if he clarified his position at this stage.
I believe that the debate on Scotland's national parks is moving forward and has moved forward still further tonight. The proposal for Scotland's national parks is one whose time has come and the sooner it comes, the better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for moving the new clause. I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) are particularly interested in Scotland and its heritage. I am aware of their particular desire for national parks.
I am sad that I do not have much time to answer the debate in detail; I can merely respond in note form. The hon. Member for Dumbarton is not quite fair to the Scottish Office about its efforts to deal with the Loch Lomond project, because a great deal is going on. If it had not been for the Government introducing a change to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to enable a change in circumstances relative to byelaws, no such development would have been possible. We have now received recommendations from the local authorities. We are going through the large number of objections—far more than just those from the Scottish Sports Council—as quickly as we can. I hope that we shall be able to do something about them in the not too distant future.
I agree that speed limits for motor boats, jet skis and so on should be considered as soon as possible, but at the same time, we should allow for certain water recreation, as others have requested. There has been no delay, because it is only right that we should consider the consultations carefully, and that is exactly what we are doing.
In response to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, I should like to consider all the issues associated with the national parks in much greater detail. Of course, he is not really right to say that SNH believes in national parks and not in the voluntary partnership, because, after all, the architect of the Cairngorms partnership was no less than Magnus Magnusson, the chairman of SNH, who is a keen enthusiast for the voluntary system. There is no doubt that that system is

settling down extremely well under Mr. David Laird. We are pleased at how the developments are coming along in the Cairngorms. What has been important has been the tremendous co-operation between those who have been appointed to the partnership, who have had a general welcome, and the new local authorities. They are all beginning to work together extremely well towards the objectives that we want to see achieved.
That is what will happen at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I do not know why Opposition Members keep on running down that partnership scheme, because they believe, as I do, in giving local authorities as much responsibility as possible. The local authority of the hon. Member for Dumbarton and Stirling authority have an enormous chance to work together on that project to develop just what we want, a voluntary partnership. That will offer the chance of immense development in the Loch Lomond area.
Bearing in mind the fact that the Countryside Commission has recommended that the special areas of Scotland should be subject to special procedures to govern their future, we have offered exactly that in the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I am confident that that will work out well in the future.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Sir Hector Monro: I would have liked to debate this issue at much length, but unfortunately that is not possible tonight. The voluntary partnership is working well and will work well with the new local authorities, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Wilson: I shall be brief, even though the Minister would not give way to me.
The Minister's response was disgraceful, because it did not begin to address the philosophical question of why Scotland, which gave national parks to the world, should be the only part of Britain that does not benefit from national parks. The truth of the matter is that it is because of the landowning lobby in Scotland and the Government's refusal to interfere in the free market of land and the untrammelled rights of landlords. That is the problem. Until the day when the Scottish Landowners Federation does not have the ear of the Government, Scotland will be denied national parks and Scottish land and Scottish natural heritage will be denied the protection that comes from national parks. Fortunately, the day when such things can be changed is not very far away.
There is wide consensus in favour of national parks and a clear-cut need for them. The fact that the Scottish Office has continued to find every excuse available for avoiding the implementation of national parks in Scotland is a standing disgrace to the Government and also a standing memorial to the fact that they are in the pocket of the landowning lobby in Scotland.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I share the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) at the Minister's answer because however brief the time may be—we know that it is pressing—I think that at least sympathetic consideration could have been given to something so obviously desirable and long wanted. As we are not going to make any progress tonight, we must hope for better times in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 16

GUIDANCE ON OLD MINERAL PLANNING PERMISSIONS

' —(1)When issuing guidance under paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether a mineral planning authority would reasonably be expected to impose similar restrictions if the permission had been issued following a new application after 21st February 1982;
(2) Where he feels similar restrictions would have been imposed following a new application after 21st February 1982 his assumption shall be that their provisions are reasonable.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 75 to 77.

Ms Ruddock: As perhaps befits this time of night, new clause 16 is moved in a spirit of co-operation. The Opposition, like the local authority associations and numerous countryside and conservation organisations, welcomed the Government's promise in the other place to bring forward new provisions to enable mineral planning authorities to review pre-1982 permissions. However, when those proposals came before the Standing Committee, they were a grave disappointment. Once again, the Bill's promise had been blighted, undoubtedly by the exercise of commercial interests in the drafting room.
Schedule 13 establishes a mechanism for the provision of compensation to mineral operators when new conditions are imposed by the mineral planning authorities on old mineral permissions at active sites. Schedule 13 is the problem for the simple reason that the eligibility and compensation arrangements have led to widespread alarm among local authority associations, and especially at the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose representations and expertise on the matter are well known to the Minister.
The compensation arrangements are a major departure from the tried and tested practice in respect of pre-1948 permissions dealt with under interim development orders. IDOs have avoided unnecessary confrontation with industry and unnecessary compensation payments. Our preference would have been for the Bill to introduce a regime based on IDOs, but given the Government's chosen course, our new clause seeks to protect local communities from suffering from poor and outdated standards in respect of old mineral permissions, or from compensation payments to companies that are often vastly profitable.
Mineral extraction, even to modern environmental standards, imposes considerable unwelcome burdens on local communities. They suffer from dust, dirt, frequent and constant noise, and from heavy lorries with heavy loads which are sometimes driven without due care through narrow streets. Those rural communities especially need and deserve the upgrading of old mineral planning permissions. That is a simple matter of progress and justice, and a recognition that the world has changed.
Reasonableness is supposed to be the yardstick by which the requirements of change are to be imposed in schedule 13. If it is, the Government should accept our new clause.
If the conditions to be imposed on old mineral planning permissions are similar to those currently expected for new planning permissions, they should be deemed reasonable. New clause 16 provides for that. Neither the Minister nor industry should have anything to fear, and I look forward to the Minister's constructive response.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his letter, which clearly set out the answers to all the questions raised in Committee? It was extremely helpful, and gave some very useful information.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the starting point for considering compensation should be that, in common with all other forms of development, planning permissions can be revoked or modified only if subject to the payment of compensation? Will he confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve—
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Environment Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I start that paragraph again?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Tedious repetition is not acceptable at this time of night.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: It would be greatly amiss if I were tedious, let alone repetitious, so I shall be neither.

Mr. Piers Merchant: My hon. Friend will be expeditious.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed, I shall be expeditious, as I was trying to be before the Ten o'clock motion was moved.
I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve, and that the industry is already making great strides towards achieving higher environmental standards. As the industry has accepted that it should bear the cost of upgrading planning permissions with regard to "sensory" conditions—those relating to noise and dust—will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention that the Government amendments should provide only a backstop to ensure that the industry's fundamental working rights cannot be severely restricted as a result of the new review?
Is it not the case that new clause 16 seeks to nullify compensation safeguards contained in the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, were it to be accepted, it would secure the effective confiscation of assets, retrospectively and without compensation? Will he confirm that the guidance notes to be issued by the Secretary of State will carefully reflect the contents of the Bill, and will not be


allowed effectively to introduce new requirements with which the industry will be required to comply but which have not been considered first by the House?
I am concerned that the guidance notes, of which I have seen a draft copy and which extend to 45 pages, include references to the use of prohibition notices and the circumstances in which they can be used. They are defined in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. However, the draft notes extend the criteria significantly by introducing new material considerations, and I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that he will bring anything that effectively changes the current legislation back to the House for consideration.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised some interesting points about compensation. This aspect of the Bill will prove to be a lawyers' charter. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the strength of the new clause is that it rules out compensation and removes local authorities from the invidious position in which they would find themselves.
Local authorities clearly want to make environmental improvements, but if they are challenged, they face potential costs which they cannot afford. The new clause is an important way for them to avoid those costs. I support it strongly, because the issue of compensation will prove to be a quagmire.

Dr. John Marek: I shall make a brief contribution in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). We could debate new clause 16 for a long time. Suffice it to say that the Government are again on the side of the landlords and the people with assets who want to stuff even more money into their pockets. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has just spoken, proved that point very well.
Government Members care not a fig about the community. In my constituency of Wrexham and the surrounding area of about 50 miles in each direction, there is more concern about applications for quarrying for various minerals, the dismissal of the community's concerns and desires, and environmental matters than almost any other issue. I think that new clause 16 is very important, and Labour Front-Bench Members were correct to table it.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will confirm in her winding-up speech that, when the next Labour Government take office—Conservative Members may do themselves in over the next 10 days—she will insist that the Labour Government's environment Bill is the equivalent of new clause 16.
That is what the public of this country demand. They are fed up with Conservative Members pleading for money for their own supporters, without worrying about the environment, people or communities. I look forward to seeing new clause 16 take effect, not as a result of this Bill, but in the next Parliament.

Sir Paul Beresford: Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 are technical amendments, so I shall concentrate my remarks on new clause 16. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is correct when he says that it is an important clause.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said, the system of regulations under the interim development order approach is working. That is our model in this instance. As she knows, there will be no compensation for conditions which do not restrict working rights. Compensation will arise only if working rights restrictions prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site. There is little difference from the test that the mineral planning authorities should be, and are, applying to the imposition of conditions on active IDO sites.

Ms Ruddock: I am anxious not to intervene upon the Minister too soon, but I know that he is trying to rush, so he may pass over this point. He referred to "prejudice to an unreasonable degree" and that is on the face of the Bill. Will he define that statement? Otherwise, he must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that the legislation could be a lawyers' charter.

Sir Paul Beresford: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The word "unreasonable" is used quite commonly in legislation. As she knows already—it has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—we are undertaking preliminary consultation on the draft guidance. That guidance makes it clear that we intend that the industry and mineral planning authorities should follow the same principles for updating the pre-1982 sites as were followed for the interim development orders. That will ensure that there is equal treatment between the sites and the operators. It is a fair and equitable approach.
I am a little astonished—but perhaps I am not so astonished upon reflection—at the reaction of the hon. Member for Wrexham. If that is the kind of approach that we are to expect from the Labour party in future, God help industry and the economy in this country. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

Ms Ruddock: I must invite the Minister to respond again, as I failed to intervene during his speech. He has not explained to the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has the Floor.

Ms Ruddock: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not given the House an explanation as to why the legislation is different from the interim development orders. He said that they are working effectively, but he has given no account of why the test of reasonableness in relation to the economic viability of working a site or its asset value should have been placed in the schedule. It is very difficult for us to understand why that proposal has come forward when the Government already acknowledge that they have a perfectly good working arrangement in respect of older mineral planning permission.
I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to tell the House why that change is necessary—why that new duty is imposed. He has not said why our new clause is unreasonable. All that our new clause seeks to do is acknowledge that, where the standards that are to be imposed are equivalent to those that would be imposed on a new planning permission sought today, by definition that must be reasonable. Why is it not reasonable?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Surely the reason why it is in that schedule is that, although the interim development orders


have worked well so far, we have dealt with the easiest cases, and the more difficult cases remain to be resolved. That is why it is necessary to put those later permissions in that schedule.

Ms Ruddock: I do not believe that that remark was at all helpful. The hon. Gentleman has not in any way explained why what is being dealt with at the moment is more difficult than what was dealt with in the past. We must accept that people are sitting on assets that are in the ground, and they have old planning permissions, which are not appropriate to modern standards, modern considerations and the needs of modern societies.
Is the Minister prepared to speak?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has touched on it. We are convinced that there is no difference between the IDO and the method that we are moving now. We are consulting industry, mineral planning authorities and environmental groups on draft guidance in relation to putting it into action.
We feel that it would be only fair for compensation to be paid to the industry if there were an effective change in the economic viability of those sites. However, we recognise, as does the industry, the importance of introducing conditions—and the industry is accepting those conditions for the sites—for environmental reasons. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the matter carefully and will accept that, in those circumstances, it is only fair that compensation should be paid if, beyond that, there is an effect on the economic viability of a specific site.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister may believe that he is being helpful, but I fear that he is not. The economic viability is not an objective measure. It will be for the local authority, the mineral planning authority, to make some judgment about the way in which the new conditions would affect economic viability.
I suggest to the Minister that, if a cash-strapped local authority has to take that into account, it may feel that it is unable to demand that conditions at that site are raised to modern standards, because of fears that it might be subject to challenge under the legislation, as it could be held that there was an economic impact on that company that was unacceptable under the legislation that the Minister proposes.
We believe that very many of those companies are well able to pay for the slight changes—or, in some circumstances, considerable changes—that might result from bringing those permissions up to modern standards. We believe that those companies are better placed to absorb those costs, and to behave responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way, than are local authorities and local communities.
I am afraid that, if the Minister cannot accept what is a very simple new clause, which only defines effectively what is reasonable action and prevents the continuance of ambiguity and worry for local planning authorities which would have to make those considerations—if he intends to sit there and allow local authorities and local communities to bear the brunt of bringing those old planning permissions up to modern standards—we must divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 269.

Division No. 180]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Allen, Graham
Foster, Don (Bath)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galbraith, Sam


Austin-Walker, John
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry
Gapes, Mike


Barton, Kevin
Garrett, John


Battle, John
Gerrard, Neil


Bayley, Hugh
Godman, Dr Norman A


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Godsiff, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hain, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hanson, David


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heppell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Brown, N (N'c'de upon Tyne E)
Hinchliffe, David


Burden, Richard
Hodge, Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Caborn, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Church, Judith
Illsley, Eric


Clapham, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Clarke, Tom (MonMands W)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jowell, Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Corston, Jean
Khabra, Piara S


Cousins, Jim
Mlfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Lestor, Joan (Ecdes)


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Denham, John
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
McFall, John


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)
MacShane, Denis


Flynn, Paul
Maddock, Diana






Mahon, Alice
Rooney, Terry


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Rowlands, Ted


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Ruddock, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Motley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yaidley)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Straw, Jack


O'Hara, Edward
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tipping, Paddy


Parry, Robert
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Joan


Pope, Greg
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham 
Watson, Mike


E)
Welsh, Andrew


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, DrTony


Reid, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rendel, David



Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. George Mudie.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowis, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arnold, Jacques (Gnavesham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv')
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Booth, Hartley
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Churchill, Mr


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Clapplson, James





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, QuentJn (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
LJghtbown, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Reid, Bany (fete of W9M;
Lord, Michael


Fishbum, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
MartJand, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Martand, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Mariow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gill, Christopher
Merchant, Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charies
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant,SirAfSlYCamte;
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Winal S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)

Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)
Redwood, Rt Hon John






Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Richards, Rod
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomason, Roy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thumham, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Tom
Trend, Michael


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shersby, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Stem, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Sykes, John
Mr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6), That the Bill be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

ESTIMATES

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [20th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

DANGEROUS DRUGS

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

FEES AND CHARGES

That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Food Science Laboratory

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am grateful for this opportunity to present a petition of more than 10,500 names in conjunction with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It has been signed by people of the city of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland who disagree strongly with the decision to relocate the Food Science Laboratory at Torry in my constituency to the Central Science Laboratory at York. The petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Right Honourable William Waldegrave, M.P., Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food to intervene in the proposal to relocate Food Science Laboratory, Torry, 135 Abbey Road, Aberdeen.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I too have a petition from Aberdeen in north-east Scotland. It has been signed by 10,500 people to add to that presented already by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), making 21,023 people in total. They are deeply concerned at, and protesting against, the possible relocation of the Food Science Laboratory in Torry, Aberdeen to the Central Science Laboratory in York. Those signatures were collected in a short space of time, showing that the scientific facilities and skilled staff will be sorely missed.
Wherefore your petitioners pay that your honourable House do urge the Right Honourable William Waldegrave, M.P., Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food to intervene in the proposal to relocate Food Science Laboratory, Torry, 135 Abbey Road, Aberdeen.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
To lie upon the Table.

Paisley Floods

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents who were affected by the floods in December 1994 and whose lives have been devastated since that time. Many of them have not yet been able to return to their homes. The petition
Declares that the floods which affected the South End of Paisley during December 1994, brought misery to hundreds of families and that Her Majesty's Government have so far taken no action to prevent such flooding occurring again.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urgently put in place measures to impose powers and duties on national and local bodies to establish adequate flood prevention measures where these are required.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Glaxo-Wellcome Site, Beckenham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Piers Merchant: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that is of considerable importance to my constituency, but that also affects other constituencies in the south London region. I am pleased, and appreciate, that my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who are also affected, are present. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford wishes, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to add a few words when I finish.
Exactly a week ago, Glaxo announced the closure of the Wellcome research site at Beckenham. A total of 1,550 jobs will be lost at that location. There will be a long-term impact on the local economy and a premier research and development facility will be abandoned. This is obviously a matter of great concern to my constituents and to all connected with the local economy.
The closure will also impact heavily across the entire London borough of Bromley, affecting the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst, for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) and for Orpington (Mr. Horam). It will also be felt elsewhere in the south-east. As an indication of that, I believe that about 400 or just over of the employees at Beckenham live in the Dartford area. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be interested to know that some 120 of them have ME postcodes and a further 140 have TN postcodes.
Restructuring of the former Wellcome sites was widely expected after the takeover of Wellcome plc by Glaxo. I regret the fact that Wellcome was not able to continue as an independent company and that the Beckenham site was chosen for closure. However, I do not blame Glaxo-Wellcome for rationalising. The management have a responsibility to run their company as efficiently as possible. Glaxo-Wellcome is a great British company, operating in one of Britain's leading industries. It contributes enormously to our economy as a whole; to exports, employment, wealth creation, discovery and healing. I wish it nothing but well. However, I also care deeply about the future of the former Wellcome employees and their site.
I have been in touch with Wellcome and Glaxo-Wellcome about this matter for some months. Last Tuesday, the chief executive of Glaxo-Wellcome, Sir Richard Sykes, invited me to a meeting immediately after the announcement was made. I had a long talk to him and I know that he has agonised over this decision. He also went out of his way to stress that his company will do all that it can to fulfil its social responsibilities and to look after the Wellcome employees it inherited. In a letter to me he said:
I can assure you that those who are made redundant will be offered generous severance terms, and the company will also provide extensive support by way of counselling, retraining and outplacement through an on-site Resource Centre. We shall, of course, be consulting trade union representatives about the implications of the closure.
My colleagues and I well recognise the scientific contribution and reputation of Beckenham over the past 70 years. We are also very conscious of the impact which the decision to end Wellcome's long-standing presence will have on the local community. We shall be discussing … what we can do to help to alleviate this impact.


Even in the few days since then, Glaxo-Wellcome has said that it will commission a full study of the impact of the changes and that it will produce a package of measures to help the local community.
Over the past few months, I have also worked closely with the leader of the London borough of Bromley, Councillor Dennis Barkway. Councillor Barkway was swift to set up a council working party to help tackle the problems in the wake of restructuring. His response, has I believe, been laudable, indeed impeccable.
We would all like this to be a copybook example of how to minimise the impact of a major jobs blow such as this. However, I believe that the time has now come for wider involvement. I am raising this matter because I believe that there needs to be some Government input. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assist by ensuring that her Department, the Employment Service and perhaps also the Department for Education and the Department of Trade and Industry will help with the expertise that they can offer.
I am not holding out a begging bowl. Although unemployment is now above its usual level in my constituency—I mean the level before this announcement—we could hardly make a case for being a deprived area. We see this not as a problem but as an opportunity, looking to the future, not the past. Nevertheless, no community can take so big and sudden a loss of jobs without some shock. I believe that Government expertise is needed in three areas. It is needed, first, to help those made unemployed. The position is not as bad as it looks. Although 1,550 jobs are going, Glaxo has approached the matter in the most sensitive way possible. The jobs will go over three years—not all at once—in gradual stages. Many of the existing employees will be offered transfers to other Glaxo locations. Some will want to take an attractive package of early retirement. Others will, no doubt, accept generous redundancy arrangements to pursue alternative opportunities elsewhere.
Many of the people about whom we are talking are highly qualified, highly skilled professionals. They are unlikely, for the most part, to have a great problem in finding other opportunities. There will, however, remain a hard core of former employees who will lose their jobs and who will have no immediate alternative job on offer. Glaxo has already promised those people help, as have the borough and the South London training and enterprise council, SOLOTEC. Further Employment Service support is, however, essential.
Secondly, there is the impact on the economy. This is more severe because it is likely to be more long-lasting. There will be a loss of 1,550 employees, some 1,300 of them working in research, with an average annual income of about £23,500—well above the national average—which will leave a big hole in local spending power. I am always wary about economic theories and figures so I am particularly wary about predicting how big the hole in local spending power will be. However, it is obvious that the loss of about £29 million per year in wages will have an impact on spending power in the area and will probably have a knock-on impact as well, whatever one believes about the theory of the economic multiplier.
The loss of the employing company itself, which clearly spends a large sum on locally produced services, will have a further impact. Help is needed in overcoming this problem in the short term and in seeking a

replacement in the longer term. In other words, my constituency needs, for the sake of the local economy and for a balanced economic structure, a business or businesses to replace Wellcome.
Thirdly—this next point could be linked with the point that I have just made—there is the future of the site itself. Here is a ready-made research and development facility, fully equipped, purpose-built and stand-alone, in spacious, well-laid-out grounds. I do not mean this to sound like an estate agent's brochure, but I know that anyone who visited the site would realise that it was extremely attractive—indeed, a beautiful site. That adds an extra dimension to the very specific services there for research and development.
The site is also very well located. It is 30 minutes from central London and it is just a few miles from Croydon, which is itself a big centre. It has easy access to the M25 and to Gatwick airport. It is also on the edge of London so employees can easily live, as many have chosen to do, in the Kent and Sussex countryside. The site would best be used for its present purpose and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will lend her Department's weight to that ideal. I appreciate that there is not exactly a long waiting list for research sites, but I know that an off-the-shelf site is not often ready and available.
Britain's research and development base is vital and it is a vital part of the overall economy of the south-east. It would seem a great waste to allow part of it to slip away, especially when the site has so many advantages and when so many of the facilities are state of the art and very recently constructed. If possible, I hope that the route of reusing the site will be taken. If that proves impossible, I trust that the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade of Industry and others will work with the London borough of Bromley to find an alternative but, I hope, similar use for the site.
One idea worth examining is to transfer the ownership and running of the site, apart from the biotechnology section which is likely to be the last to move, to a separate development company or something similar. Such a company would have a remit to market the site and to make sure that its availability was known and its strengths championed. It would involve Glaxo, which would probably be willing to take part, the council, which is keen on the idea, SOLOTEC and perhaps other elements from Government Departments. Once a future was found, the company could either pass over its ownership to the new operators or could continue to run the infrastructure of the site, which has its own roads, if that were necessary. That would be useful if a number of different operators shared the site in some form of science park.
The loss of jobs in the locality is part of the general outward drift of jobs from central London. It is important to try to stop that process, as it is potentially very damaging to the capital and to the people who live in the capital. The Wellcome site would best serve the area by continuing to be used for employment, rather than for some other purpose.
I hope that Glaxo-Wellcome will help in the endeavour to attract new jobs to the site. It could assist by giving financial incentives to attract a new employer, such as soft loans, guarantees or possibly a rent-free period. I know that all of those avenues will be explored, and the Government could assist in encouraging that process.
The site cannot be developed for major industry because it is located in the middle of a high-quality


residential estate, and it would be an affront to the planning process if inappropriate major industry were sited there. We do not want any more retail parks or high-density housing, as they would not fit in well with the existing structure of the area.
The Langley court site is part of the history of Beckenham. Since 1922, its laboratories have been of great service to all mankind and local people are proud of its achievements. It is a part of the community and contributes to the diversity and balance of the area. It has provided employment for seven decades, and has put a lot into the local economy. I strongly encourage a co-operative spirit to overcome the present difficulties, to find a future for the site, to encourage new job creation and to alleviate the personal trauma that inevitably arises when industrial change comes.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for giving me the opportunity to say a few brief words in support of the case that he has put forward so ably tonight. He pointed out that the decision to close the Wellcome research site over the next three years has implications not just for the London borough of Bromley, but for all communities in west Kent, north-west Kent, Surrey and south London.
The histories of the Wellcome Foundation, or Burroughs Wellcome as it is known locally, and north-west Kent over the last 100 years have been one and the same. The contribution that the company has made to the levelling-up of standards in employment, the creation of employment and assistance to the town of Dartford and to other towns in which the company has been based has grown and grown.
Like my hon. Friend, I was somewhat concerned when the anticipated announcement was made a few days ago. The affect of the announcement was that the manufacturing site at Dartford is to be maintained and retained. That is good news, not just for Dartford but for all communities in the area, given the mobility of labour. Alongside the decision to retain the Dartford manufacturing site was the decision to close the Beckenham site.
As my hon. Friend said, more than 400 persons employed at the Beckenham site live at an address with a DA post code, which includes the London borough of Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham. Across that scattering of communities in north Kent and south London, there are implications of retraining, relocation and redundancy for many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members from our region. I know that Glaxo-Wellcome will do all that it can to ensure that the impact of those moves bears down as lightly as possible on the individuals and families affected. In particular, I commend some of the ideas that my hon. Friend put before the House this evening.
I, too, regret the probable loss of the expertise that has been built up over the years at the Beckenham site. To craft up and build over generations a team with real expertise in the pharmaceutical world and to see it broken up is something I regret, and I am sure that most hon. Members would feel the same.
I must also pay tribute to the work of Councillor Kenneth Leadbeater, the leader of the Conservative group on Dartford borough council, who has done so much to

assist the formation of policy between town and company and who has made a special journey to be here for this debate tonight.
I am impressed with the way in which the new Glaxo-Wellcome formation has dealt with me, as a Member of Parliament. I too have seen Sir Richard Sykes and I have the opportunity of another meeting in the near future. I want to place on record, however, my great concern about the decision. There are implications for my constituents and I know that the Minister, who is a Kentish Member, will do all that she can to assist those of our constituents who will be affected by the closure of the site.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on obtaining this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Sir Geoffrey—and on the way in which he put his case. It would also be right to record that, in addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) have all shown an interest in this important subject. Regrettably, no Opposition Members have shown an interest in this debate.
By responding so quickly to last week's announcement, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is seeking to ensure that the impact of this closure on employees and the local community is addressed and, furthermore, that the maximum amount of opportunities are made available to those affected. I certainly share his concern for the area and for the people involved and I thank him for reminding me of my constituency concerns in this issue. The relocation of an area's major employer is always a matter of regret and concern, not only for its employees, but for associated suppliers, contractors and the local community at large. I hope that those affected by last week's announcement will be reassured by the importance that my hon. Friends have attached to this issue.
The proposed closure of the research and development centre and the whole Beckenham site is part of a broader announcement on rationalisation, which follows the merger of the Glaxo and Wellcome companies after Glaxo's takeover in March. While Glaxo-Wellcome recognises the major scientific contribution made by Wellcome's Beckenham laboratories and the high reputation that they have gained, the company has decided that it must now refocus its research and development activities to remain the world leader in an industry which is changing at an unprecedented rate.
The Beckenham site employs 1,500 people and contains some outstanding skills in leading edge technologies such as biotechnology, for example. It is important that those skills are developed and that full advantage is taken of them. The activities of the research and development centre, which employs some 1,300 staff, will move to the company's brand new, state-of-the-art research centre in Stevenage—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) will be delighted to welcome them—confirming the company's continuing commitment to research and development in the United Kingdom. It is also maintaining its manufacturing sites in this country.
Glaxo-Wellcome currently expects a significant number of the 1,300 research and development staff to be offered relocation to the Stevenage centre, but cannot


offer any specific numbers at this stage. Therefore, it is still unclear what proportion will be made redundant as a result of the Beckenham site closure, and until offers have been made individuals will not be able to assess their acceptability. We know, however, that the centre will be run down over three years, so the impact on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will be phased.
In raising the matter in the House at the earliest opportunity my hon. Friend has highlighted its importance to his constituency. As he said, it is never too early to plan for the consequences of such a closure. Glaxo-Wellcome has already consulted key partners to discuss how support and assistance can be provided to those affected. The company has stated that it recognises that the closure will have an impact on the Beckenham and Bromley communities, and it has already held discussions with Bromley council, the local training and enterprise council and the Employment Service to work out ways of alleviating the effects of the closure.
Only yesterday John Howell, chief executive of SOLOTEC, the local training and enterprise council, met the company chairman of Glaxo-Wellcome and representatives from Bromley council to discuss the support that can be provided to staff who either are not offered, or do not wish to accept, a transfer to the Stevenage site. I am informed that at that meeting a decision was taken to establish a task force with an immediate remit to undertake a detailed audit to identify the skills, current jobs and experience of individual employees. When the detailed information has been collected and assessed, an action plan will be drawn up to address the impact of the closure, taking into account the skills and experience of individuals.
The south London district of the Employment Service has agreed to collaborate formally with SOLOTEC to provide the most effective service possible to Glaxo-Wellcome employees and others affected by the closure. I am sure that by working in partnership and pooling skills, resources and information, the Employment Service can provide an even more efficient response to the situation. I understand that at yesterday's meeting an immediate start was made to specify the support that should be provided. In broad terms, the Employment Service will offer interviews to redundant employees to provide advice and guidance on the options available. Interviews can take place either on company premises or in local Employment Service or TEC offices.
The matters for discussion are likely to be wide ranging, but outcomes could include a reference to SOLOTEC, signposting to other agencies for specialist assistance, and arrangements for a follow-up interview with the same counsellor to monitor progress. The TEC will help individual employees to identify job requirements and to define appropriate training needs, and will discuss ways in which these can be met. The TEC will also advise on the possibilities for self-employment and business start-up.
The wide variety of programmes and services offered by both the TEC and the Employment Service will be available, as appropriate, to Glaxo-Wellcome employees and others affected by the site closure. The aim will be to offer targeted, practical and relevant advice to all who need it. I am well aware that the closure of the Glaxo-Wellcome site in Beckenham could result in the redundancy of some highly skilled individuals and I am confident that the Employment Service and SOLOTEC

will work together to ensure that every possible effort is made to provide suitable advice and guidance to those individuals. I also understand that the executive job club in Bromley will enhance its existing provision to address the specific needs of that particular client group. Glaxo-Wellcome has promised support and assistance to its employees throughout this difficult period.
My hon. Friend also asked about the future of the Beckenham site. He will be interested to know that the Government office for London has been in touch with the London First centre, which receives funding from the Department of Trade and Industry to act as the inward investment agency for London. One of the London First centre's priorities is to develop a portfolio of sites which will contribute to the overall marketing of London to potential investors. It works in close collaboration with English Partnerships and the Government office for London in that respect. The London First centre will meet Glaxo in the next few weeks to discuss a range of issues, including what action might be taken over the Beckenham site.
As my hon. Friend may be aware, this is not the first time that a London TEC has had to respond to the closure of one of its major employers. Following the closure of the British Aerospace site in Kingston, the local TEC—AZTEC—was instrumental in drawing together the local authority and other key partners to make recommendations for dealing with the effects of such a closure. I am certain that SOLOTEC, Bromley council and the Employment Service, in conjunction with Glaxo-Wellcome, will respond in an equally positive way.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend that, although any addition to unemployment is deeply unwelcome, in his constituency unemployment has fallen by almost 12 per cent. in the past year—faster than in the London region as a whole.
It is important for us all that Glaxo-Wellcome should continue to thrive in the ever more challenging world of the international pharmaceutical industry. The company has made the commercial judgment that rationalisation of its sites is unavoidable. I am sure that Glaxo-Wellcome will wish to conduct the Beckenham site closure in a professional manner and will continue to be actively involved in alleviating the impact on its employees and the local community. I know that SOLOTEC and the Employment Service will ensure that appropriate counselling, guidance and retraining are made available. I shall keep in touch with developments and ask SOLOTEC and the Employment Service to keep me fully informed. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham, for Chislehurst and for Dartford, and all other hon. Friends with an interest in the subject, will feel free at any time to bring to my attention any further concerns that they may have.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on securing this debate. The interest of other hon. Members clearly shows the importance that should be attached to it. Moreover, the running commentary that was kept up throughout the debate shows the excitement that it has occasioned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.